We keep hearing about the importance of adapting to our ever-changing world, but what does that mean? Entrepreneur recently published an article called 4 Critical Skills for a Changing World, in which author Steve Tobak looks at the effects of digital society and the skills necessary to ensure we adapt accordingly. 

What is most interesting about Tobak's commentary is that it points towards the fact that in some ways technology has complicated society rather than making it simpler and easier to function within. For example, social media may at times take away the effectiveness of real time engagement and discussion. People are also more distracted than they've ever been before and need to find ways of sifting through what's important and what's not. Critical thinking is more important than it has ever been before. The internet holds an exorbitant amount of information, but this can be dangerous if not used with discretion.

It's impossible to deny that along with technological advances has come an entire host of new challenges. But is Tobak right in arguing that people should adapt their behaviour to accommodate the rise in digital media? Or should we be viewing the matter in an entirely different light?

Contributor to Forbes Online, Carmine Gallo, recently posted a fascinating case study of a business (and it’s CEO’s) transformation, from an environment where the leadership style was more dictator than democratic, to a culture where the happiness of employees is the most important factor in the business.  

Tony Gareri had worked in the family business, Roma Moulding for 12 years. Established in 1984, Roma Moulding had carved a reputation as North America’s premier manufacturer of hand crafted custom picture frames and had thrived through several economic downturns.  

However, in 2008, the wordwide financial economic downturn had affected the company to the extent that sales had plummeted by more than 30% and Gareri was losing his passion for the business. He had lost interest in his employees, not caring what they had to say and giving little thought to what inspired them. As a result, staff turnover hit an all time high and Gareri realised that something would need to change if the business were to survive not only the recession, but also his detrimental leadership style. 

The problem with marketing in today’s cluttered advertising environment is that just as you are attempting to engage with your customers and get the word out about your brand, so are 5000 other companies. Author, speaker and consultant Steve Yastrow proposes turning traditional marketing models on their heads: focusing less on getting the word out and more on letting the word in. 

Ultimately, what Yastrow is proposing is a process that matches the way in which customers make purchasing decisions by putting the power in their hands. It’s a trend that is fuelled by the Internet (where the consumer makes all the choices), but is not limited only to Internet searches. Ultimately, it’s the acknowledgement that customers make the decisions about what marketing messages to let in, and which to ignore. 

Traditionally, customers have been seen as the passive recipients of brand messages. But today’s consumer is far more savvy – they are active, purposeful and deliberate participants when it comes to what information they engage with. They have the power to decide – and they use it.

“Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better in the business world”.  This is an opinion, which has been tossed around quite a bit lately, but does it really hold any true significance? Andrey Grehov believes it does, and in his article, “Stay Small to be Big”, recently published on the Huffington Post, he explains exactly why. Using the analogy of renting a small apartment rather than a large one, Grehov explains that the expense and time required to run large businesses are significantly more. The energy required to sustain a big business is considerable. What's more, in a constantly changing business environment, flexibility is a significant advantage for smaller businesses. 

Looking at some of the most dynamic and successful companies in the business world like Instagram and SnapChat, we can see just how effective a smaller team can be. Not only does it mean that your business model is easier to change, but also that you are able to adapt to external and internal changes far more quickly. Less communication is required to spread important messages and information. 

While Grehov argues that cutting back on teams will help you to reap rewards, this broad statement may be somewhat shortsighted. Surely we can all agree that large businesses have their place in the business world as well, and that massive corporates enjoy benefits that smaller companies don't. Naturally you don't want your company rendered ineffective by unnecessary size, but this will all depend on the business’s' identity. What do you want to achieve and whom do you need to be in order to get there?