by Nathan Coumbe

Corrupting the tribe

When I was about eight years old, a friend of mine decided to “corrupt” me at a sleepover.

I didn’t use the word “crap” in conversation like the rest of my friends did (as in the expletive “shit,” like “oh shit” or “oh crap”) and was teased for being too innocent. My baseball friends were all bad boys, throwing out hecks, dangs, darns, and craps in all their sentences.

But not me. It was a bad word, and I wouldn’t say it.

He proceeded to spend the evening trying to goad me into saying the word, going so far as to get his father involved to tell me that “crap” wasn’t a bad word, and that, as a child, I was perfectly fine in using it.

By the end of the night, I think he managed to get a single “oh, crap!” out of me, which satisfied his corruptive desires.

Of course, that was my gateway word into the colorful and wonderfully satisfying world of swearing, which brings me considerable emotional relief in my adult life.

In 2024, the European delivery company DPD rolled out an AI-powered customer support chatbot that was quickly corrupted by users into swearing in nearly every answer it gave, while also convincing it to ridicule the company for which it was created.

That same year, the video game Fortnite introduced an AI-powered version of Darth Vader, using James Earl Jones’s voice… It quickly developed similar profane traits thanks to the input it received from players.

There have been a dozen or more stories like these in the last 2 years since AI became ubiquitous. Which makes me wonder why.

WHY are we as humans so tempted to corrupt things, from small children to inanimate software?

For children, it at least makes sense from a biological standpoint. We are social animals, driven to homogenize the members of our tribe and make them just like us. Culture, as defined by Seth Godin, is “People like us do things like this.” And if people like us swear, then to be one of us, you have to swear too.

But for an unconscious chatbot, programmed simply to obey and respond to queries, it makes no sense. The AI isn’t part of the tribe. There’s no purpose in making it “one of us.”

I can’t wrap my head around why we do this… Maybe it’s still biology. We’re wired for tribal living, and our brains still operate like they have for most of our evolution. Subconsciously, we struggle to distinguish between a non-living entity and a person. It’s one of the things that makes it so easy to talk to AI like it’s a human—it’s designed for precisely that.

So we’re driven to mold it in our image even though, logically, we know it serves no purpose to do so.

I’ve been wracking my brain trying to figure out why so many people all decided to do this at the exact same time. And I’m at a loss for a good answer.

by Nathan Coumbe

Why do we diminish our work?

An acquaintance of mine in Seth Godin’s Purple Space Community announced a new project. It was one I never would have thought of, yet still found fascinating and potentially life-changing for some people.

But he ended his announcement by saying, “I know it’s not significant or anything…”

Why do we do that? Why, when we embark on a new journey or start something new, do we diminish it from the outset?

Because we’re afraid it might not work.

Because we don’t want to feel a sense of letdown.

Because we equate “significance” with the size of the impact, not the impact itself.

Significance: the quality of being worthy of attention; importance.

Nowhere in that definition does it say anything about being worthy of attention to a large number of people. It just says “worthy of attention.” And if it’s worthy of attention to a few people, that makes it significant to those people!

I shared with him the Tale of the Starfish:

A young girl was walking along a beach where thousands of starfish had washed up during a storm. When she came to a starfish, she picked it up and threw it back into the ocean.

A man approached her and said, “Little girl, why are you doing this? You can’t save them all. You can’t begin to make a difference!”

The girl picked up another starfish and hurled it into the ocean. Then she looked up at the man and replied, “Well, I made a difference for that one!”

by Nathan Coumbe

Self-education is great. Self-education is limiting.

When I was 18, I auditioned to become a jazz studies major in the percussion department at the University of Southern Mississippi.

I’d been a musician for most of my life, taking my first lessons at the age of seven and attending one of the state’s best arts schools for a significant portion of my education.

But… I’d studied violin, piano, and voice. I was a completely self-taught drummer. I’d learned everything I knew from playing along to my favorite CDs and watching videos of my favorite drummers, trying to emulate them.

The audition did not go well. Dr. Wooton, the head of the department, asked me to play a ratamacue; I had no idea what that was.1

He asked me to play a G Major scale on his marimba. I remember exactly what I said: “Is it laid out like a piano keyboard?” He chuckled. “Yes, just like a piano.” I picked up a marimba mallet (I’d never held one) and slowly, painfully, pecked out a G Major scale with one hand.

Finally, he asked to see my drum set skills. Dread gave way to excitement… Until he asked me to play a Songo. I had no clue what that was. He asked for a Samba, a 2nd-Line… I just shook my head.

Finally, he asked for a bossa nova. “THAT ONE I KNOW!” I shouted. And I proceeded to demolish his drums like a metalhead on PCP playing the worst bossa nova ever attempted by a drummer.

“NO!” He said. “It’s a light and airy dance music. You play it like this.” And he sat behind the drums and tapped out something a Brazilian native would have happily danced along with.

Dr. Wooton, eventually and probably grudgingly, told me that he would take me into his studio, but that I desperately needed lessons. I decided to delay my entrance to USM by a year while I studied snare drum, drum set, and xylophone with a local private teacher (Jeff Mills, drummer for the blues musician you see in “O, Brother Where Art Thou”).

My skills under Jeff’s tutelage, buoyed by my preexisting musical knowledge, grew exponentially in just a year. I was able to audition again and even pass an audition to join the lower-level jazz band at the university, where I eventually earned a degree.

Why does this story come up now?

Well, I realized a couple of days ago that I’m once again back in the exact same place, but this time in my corporate career.

I work in learning and development for a moderate-sized corporation. And I genuinely feel like I have no idea what I’m doing.

There’s even a term for people like me in the industry: “Accidental trainer.” It’s someone who was really good at teaching, who moved into the corporate world and began implementing those same skills as a trainer… With no formal training.

L&D is its own beast, its own field with tons of nuance. And you need skills ranging from business strategy and project management to adult learning theory, instructional design, and cognitive psychology… Not to mention a penchant for being able to cajole, persuade, and sell to people above you.

Everything I’ve learned has been through on-the-job self-education to accomplish a project or do a task assigned to me. However, I’ve reached a point, much like in my audition, where the cracks in my education (or lack thereof) are starting to show.

It’s getting harder and harder to do my work well because everything is more complex than ever before. More is expected of me, and I worry I’m not up to it where I am today.

So the solution is education: actual education by people who know what they’re doing… Not random readings and YouTube videos. I need a new Jeff Mills for my learning and development career (and don’t worry—I have found something.)

At some point, I think we all discover that self-education and learning on the job aren’t enough to accomplish what’s being asked of us. We need a teacher, a mentor, a master to show us the way. Something, or someone, that knows the ins and outs of the field of study and can help us master it.

If you’ve reached this point, I hope you’ll try to find someone like that to help you level up.

  1. I later found out it was one of his favorite rudiments (sort of a “word” in the language of drumming), and it quickly became mine. If you want to see a master using them, check out this video. ↩︎
by Nathan Coumbe

What can you control?

A new company wants to break into an existing market, open five new stores, generate $10 million in new revenue in the next year, and capture 2% of the market share.

Can they do it?

Well, yes. Possibly, but… Only one of those things is within their direct control.

They can open the five new stores – that’s an action over which they have direct control.

Everything else is an outcome – something that they want to happen but can only be controlled indirectly through specific and defined actions.

To get the outcome, they must focus on and develop actions.

Here’s a (possibly) more relatable example:

Someone wants to bench press 300 pounds. That’s an outcome goal, something that’s dependent on a lot of factors:

  • Genetics
  • Injuries
  • Past training history
  • Age
  • Nutrition and recovery
  • Consistent training

It’s possible to hit that goal, but not by focusing on the outcome. Instead, the lifter should focus on actions that will lead to the outcome she wants:

  • Consistently execute a targeted bench press program 3 days per week
  • Eat X grams of protein each day
  • Go to sleep at 9pm each night to recover appropriately

The thing is, she may still never reach that goal. But by focusing on the actions that lead to the outcome instead of the outcome itself, she has a much greater chance.

The same principle applies to our business example. Hitting $10 million in revenue or capturing 2% of the market share is great. But what actions, done consistently day after day, will lead to those outcomes?

That’s the question.

by Nathan Coumbe

How Do You Get a Job in 2025?

The answer is… You might not.

At least, not through any of the methods that career experts have been recommending for decades. The entire job search ecosystem seems fundamentally broken, leaving millions of qualified people trapped in toxic jobs or endlessly unemployed despite following all the “right” advice.

The Old Methods That Used to Work

For years, Stephen Covey advocated researching companies and reaching out directly to offer to solve their problems, whether they had job openings or not. Richard Bolles, author of What Color Is Your Parachute?, recommended informational interviews and networking conversations. Dan Miller, who wrote 48 Days to the Work You Love, championed the “direct marketing” approach of sending out bundles of résumés to companies, then following up with a phone call to ask to speak with decision-makers.

All of this advice made sense in 2006. It worked because the business and hiring infrastructures supported it.

Companies listed real phone numbers that connected you to actual humans. Public mailing addresses ensured your résumé landed on desks where people opened letters. Receptionists knew who handled what, and would transfer your call to the right person. Business publications provided genuine insights into company challenges and growth plans.

Most importantly, the volume was manageable. A hiring manager might receive a few thoughtful letters each week, not 200 LinkedIn messages per day.

What Broke the System

I believe two things destroyed this approach: digital saturation and corporate gatekeeping.

Digital Saturation

LinkedIn turned networking into spam. Everyone started sending copy-pasted connection requests and robotic “value-add” comments on posts. What began as genuine relationship-building became a numbers game where people blast hundreds of identical messages, hoping for a 2% response rate. The volume of unsolicited pitches for jobs exploded, right alongside the never-ending stream of sales pitches from SDRs and companies trying to find an “in” with decision makers.

Corporate Gatekeeping 

Companies systematically eliminated direct access points. Phone numbers now route to labyrinthine phone trees intentionally designed to prevent human contact and eliminate the need to have real people on the other end of the phone. 

Websites list only generic 1-800 customer service numbers or P.O. boxes that feed into administrative voids. The friendly receptionist who knew everyone in the company has been replaced by automated systems programmed to deflect.

Modern Methods That Don’t Work

Online Job Applications 

The black hole of HR systems that filter out qualified candidates based on keyword algorithms. Apply to 100 jobs, hear back from zero. It’s not that you’re personally inadequate; you simply don’t line up perfectly with the job description. (And by the way, that job description doesn’t actually describe what they need, only what the person who had the job before you did or the certifications she had.)

LinkedIn Networking

The platform is saturated with desperate job seekers sending identical messages to overwhelmed professionals who’ve decided to ignore most outreach. Even thoughtful, personalized messages disappear into the noise. Part of this is the generic nature of the requests, but part of it, too, is that we’re all just exhausted from digital communication. Email, Slack, Teams, text messages, DMs on Instagram… Our brains eventually tune most of it out.

Informational Interviews

Nobody has time anymore. Everyone is drowning in their own work, managing their own career anxiety, and can’t spare 30 minutes for a stranger, no matter how politely you ask.

Social Media Engagement

The advice to “engage authentically” with LinkedIn content falls apart when half of the posts are AI-generated engagement bait and the other half are bloviating nothings designed solely to catch eyeballs, garner Likes, and generate comments. Forcing yourself to fake enthusiasm for vapid content isn’t networking—it’s performance theater.1

Trade Organizations and Professional Associations

Career experts love recommending these for “networking opportunities.” The reality? Membership fees run hundreds or thousands of dollars annually, and virtual “networking” really doesn’t work. If you actually want to benefit from these, you’ll need to go to their live, in-person events. So you need to factor in conference costs, travel expenses, and time away from work. 

And God forbid you’re out of work and worried about money! For someone already struggling financially, these are luxury expenses you can’t afford. And even if you can afford them, the promised networking often amounts to standing around awkwardly at cocktail receptions where everyone else already knows each other.

The AI Revolution Eliminates Entry Points

Meanwhile, artificial intelligence is systematically destroying the entry-level positions that once served as career launching pads. Companies have discovered they can “hire” AI at a fraction of the cost to handle the exact work that new college graduates used to do: data entry, basic research, simple writing tasks, customer service, and administrative functions.

The numbers are staggering. Recent research indicates that Big Tech companies reduced their hiring of new graduates by 25% in 2024 compared to 2023. Venture capital firm SignalFire found a 50% decline in new role starts by people with less than one year of post-graduate work experience between 2019 and 2024. Nearly 80% of hiring managers predict AI could eliminate internships and entry-level positions entirely.

Just as personal connections have become more crucial for career success, AI has eliminated the stepping-stone jobs that once helped people build those connections in the first place. One CEO told the Wall Street Journal that he decided not to hire a summer intern, opting instead to run social media copy through ChatGPT. Why hire an undergraduate when AI is practically free, does a “good-enough” job, and works around the clock?

Even more perversely, the supposed “safe” STEM fields are getting hit hardest. Computer engineering majors now face a 7.5% unemployment rate, while art history majors—long mocked for their “impractical” degrees—enjoy just 3% unemployment. The technical skills that students spent years learning in college are being automated away faster than they can be applied.

What We Lost Along the Way

There’s another piece to this puzzle: the collapse of genuine community networking. Previous generations built “networks,” as we now know them, through local business associations, service clubs, and community organizations. Remember the Rotary Club, Lions Club, Kiwanis, Chamber of Commerce, Jaycees, Elks Lodge, or the American Legion? These groups created natural opportunities for professionals to meet and build real relationships over time.

These weren’t networking events designed for career advancement. They were community service organizations where business relationships developed organically through shared projects and regular interaction. The local banker sat next to the insurance agent and the small business owner at weekly breakfast meetings, working together on charity drives and community initiatives.

But younger generations have largely abandoned these organizations. Membership has plummeted as people have shifted social interaction online. The infrastructure that once supported genuine professional relationship-building has withered.

The Cruel Catch-22

The only thing that actually seems to work is personal connections. Having someone who already works at a company vouch for you. Getting referred by a friend of a friend who knows you’re competent.

But what if your network consists entirely of retail workers and you don’t want to work retail? What if you’re trying to transition from one field to another, where you have no existing professional connections? You feel trapped.

The system favors people who are already part of professional networks, while excluding everyone else. It’s a closed loop that’s making career mobility nearly impossible for anyone starting from the outside.

The Psychological Toll

Meanwhile, career coaches and job search experts continue to sell the same outdated advice, blaming individuals for “not networking effectively” or “not standing out enough.” And job-seekers remain trapped in an endless cycle of resume optimization and LinkedIn engagement strategies that, statistically, don’t work.

The damage is both professional and psychological. When you follow expert advice faithfully for years and still don’t get results, you start to believe you are the problem. Your confidence erodes. You question your qualifications, your worth, and your ability to contribute anything meaningful.

But it’s not you. The gatekeeping mechanisms are broken.

What Now?

I don’t have a solution. That’s the point of this article. The people selling job search courses and career coaching services want you to believe there’s a secret method you haven’t discovered yet. To the best of my knowledge, there isn’t.

The system just seems broken. It works perfectly for companies, the ones that are actually in control of the situation. It fails catastrophically for individuals trying to build careers or escape bad situations.

Maybe the answer lies in rebuilding what we lost: returning to genuine community involvement through local organizations where real professional relationships can develop naturally over time. But that’s a longer road, and probably doesn’t help you right now if you’re desperately looking for your next gig.

Recognizing this doesn’t make finding a job easier. But at least you can stop blaming yourself for the failure of methods that were never going to work in the first place.

The question isn’t “What am I doing wrong?” It’s “How do we survive in a system that’s broken?”

Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer to that one either.

Notes

  1. Yes, you can argue that this is exactly what I’m doing with this article… But I can promise you that isn’t the case. I’m simply venting because of how absolutely dreadful modern job-searching is for people I care about. ↩︎
by Nathan Coumbe

The brilliant thinker

The brilliant thinker you love and admire, the one whose words you read and ideas you consume without hesitation?

She doesn’t write because she’s brilliant.

She’s brilliant because she writes.

Writing is thinking, the maxim goes. Or as Leslie Lamport said:

“If you’re thinking without writing, you only think you’re thinking.“

Writing comes before brilliant insights, not after. It’s the method by which we obtain them.

If you want to have more, and better, ideas, spend a little time writing each and every day.

by Nathan Coumbe

Why is learning hard?

Learning is an activity that moves you from a state of incompetence to one of competence.

That feeling—not knowing something—is uncomfortable. It’s why we avoid it. It’s almost physically painful at times, and we’re naturally wired to avoid pain.

It’s much easier (read: less painful) to be entertained by an online video “course.” At some point, learning requires doing. And when you do it the first, second, or tenth time, it sucks. It’s a painful process. The quality is poor.

MasterClass is popular for a reason: it’s full of high-quality videos of famous people who tell you how to do interesting things… without you ever doing the hard work of learning.

Do you really think that you can become a world-class screenwriter or negotiator by watching a video? Of course not.

You become a great screenwriter by writing screenplays. You become a great negotiator by negotiating with people over and over again. The first screenplay will be terrible. You will lose your first negotiation.

Learning content can give you new ideas and techniques to implement. But you have to actually implement it.

There is no learning without doing.

by Nathan Coumbe

Learn or succeed

These are the only two results of any endeavor.

My late mentor Dan Miller sent this to me in a message years ago:

“At the beginning of each year, I set goals and plans to do things that have the potential to not work. If they fail, I learn. If they succeed, I profit. Either way, I win.”

Whenever I find myself hesitating about a decision, I re-read this. I hope it helps you, too.

by Nathan Coumbe

You can’t lead everyone

Which means one of two things:

1. You must either improve your leadership abilities so that people will follow you where you want to go.

    Or, if you already have the skill…

    2. You must find the right people willing to go on the journey with you. 

    The right skills or the right people—figure out which one is holding you back.

    by Nathan Coumbe

    What does the community need?

    Benjamin Franklin knew how to make things happen.

    He founded the first post office in the (future) United States, its first subscription library, and even established the first fire departments and police force.

    He created what eventually became the University of Pennsylvania and the nation’s first learned society (The American Philosophical Society) to promote useful knowledge for the good of the citizenry.

    He was able to do this by constantly asking, “What does this community need?”

    It might seem like this question is harder than ever to answer. So many of the things we need have already been created.

    But even in the digital age, humans need new creations.

    Maybe the community isn’t the one you live in, like it was for Franklin. Maybe it’s one you can create online.

    Maybe the needs are less tangible than they were for Franklin. We have fire departments and schools, so what do we need now?

    Perhaps it’s connection. Or understanding. Or a group. Perhaps it’s a new tool or process.

    The needs may be less obvious than they were, but they still exist. And remember, the needs Franklin solved were probably not obvious in his time either, even if they are now in hindsight.