My dad has cancer. Mom’s a caregiver herself, and just had a hip replacement. My brother and I are having conversations we used to call hypothetical. We’ve got it easy: they're stable and don't need…
3551341631 viral
Employee Wellbeing5 months ago
LinkedIn Content Strategy & Writing Style
Future of Work strategist & bestselling author | Advisor on AI, culture & organizational transformation | Work Forward newsletter free weekly | CEO @ Work Forward | EIR @ Charter | Sr Advisor @ BCG | ex-Google, Slack
0 people tracking this creator on ViralBrain
Brian Elliott positions himself as a human-centered future-of-work strategist who translates AI, culture, and organizational change into leadership decisions, drawing credibility from Google, Slack, BCG, Charter, and Work Forward. His content centers on interrogating executive narratives with worker-level evidence - from Gallup and Stanford data on AI anxiety and early-career jobs to stories about managers losing time for coaching - then turning those findings into practical guardrails. He is distinctive in making AI a question of leadership accountability, not technological inevitability, while resisting vendor hype through tools like the independent Charter AI Pulse. His work uniquely combines advisory insight, rigorous research, open-data stewardship via the Flex Index, and a high-frequency newsletter engine.
35.0K
7.2K
86
36
22
My dad has cancer. Mom’s a caregiver herself, and just had a hip replacement. My brother and I are having conversations we used to call hypothetical. We’ve got it easy: they're stable and don't need…
Silence is a choice. In a recent HBR piece, sociologists Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev found that mentorship programs, training academies, and family-friendly scheduling (initiatives open to all e…
The four-day workweek AI promised looks dead on arrival. Tech workers' biggest fear about AI isn't losing their jobs, it's being buried by them. AI is expanding people's capabilities, but also their…
Is remote work causing loneliness? Will CEOs use the latest OpEd to push RTO again? The first one's debatable, the second is inevitable (if limited). A new study in Science covered in today's NYTime…
Big Tech CEOs get the memo: AI job fears are slowing adoption. The bigger question: have they just said "it's a bubble"? Many CEOs have changed their tone from doom to boom when it comes to AI. Davi…
When AI pressure spikes, we retreat into ourselves. That's the wrong move. The treadmill is speeding up. And when it does, most of us pull inward: protecting our own output, our own job, our own surv…
0.0 posts/week
Posts / Week
22
Total Posts Analyzed
LOW
Posting Frequency
85.8%
Avg Engagement Rate
STABLE
Performance Trend
190
Avg Length (Words)
HIGH
Depth Level
ADVANCED
Expertise Level
88/10
Uniqueness Score
YES
Question Usage
0%
Response Rate
Writing style breakdown
<start of post>
A lot of companies are treating AI fluency like a software installation.
Send everyone a tool. Announce the expectation. Put “uses AI” somewhere in the performance review.
Then act surprised when the work gets worse.
The problem isn't that people are resistant to AI. A lot of people are trying to use it. The problem is that they have no agreement on what good use looks like, no time to learn, and no manager with enough capacity to help them figure it out.
One team I heard from was told to use AI in every client project. The mandate came from senior leadership, but nobody could explain what counted as meaningful use. People started adding AI-generated summaries to their work so they could show activity. The summaries took longer to check than the original notes.
That isn't adoption. That's compliance theater.
We make this mistake because activity is easier to measure than judgment. A manager can ask whether someone used the tool. It's much harder to ask whether the tool improved the decision, widened the range of ideas, or helped someone learn the work.
And when managers are already carrying too many direct reports, too many systems, and too many new expectations, they're not going to create that definition from scratch for every person on the team.
🔸 Say what problem AI is supposed to solve. Faster is not always better. More output is not the same thing as more value.
🔸 Protect the work that teaches judgment. If every difficult first draft, customer interaction, or analytical task is handed to a tool, the next generation of workers gets fewer chances to build the underlying skill.
🔸 Reward better decisions, not visible tool usage. If people are measured on whether they touched AI, they'll find ways to touch AI. That does not mean the work improved.
The companies that get this right won't be the ones with the most tools.
They'll be the ones that can explain where AI belongs, where it doesn't, and how people are supposed to get better while using it.
What is your organization measuring right now: better work, or visible AI activity?
<end of post>
Sign in to unlock the full writing analysis
Free tools to help you write, score, and benchmark in the same style.
Other creators worth studying alongside Brian Elliott.
Simon Sinek
Optimist, New York Times bestselling author of "Start with Why" and "The Infinite Game", and founder of The Optimism Company
6 Viral Score
Mike Taylor
CEO & Co-Founder at AskRally.com – virtual focus groups.
14 Viral Score
Mahmud Hasan
Helping people with automate their business and service | App Developer
56 Viral Score
Kunal Shah
ViralBrain plans, writes, and schedules your LinkedIn content, using official LinkedIn APIs so your account stays safe.
Write like Brian Elliott.