Why Branding Starts with Belief: Insights from Jamie Schwartzman of Flux Branding

By: Hannah Green

“The only constant is change,” said Jamie Schwartzman, founder and Chief Creative Strategist of Flux Branding. “And it’s often a difficult concept for businesses to navigate.” That idea is not just a catchphrase—it defines his agency’s name, process, and philosophy.

On the Grownlearn podcast with Zorina D. Dimitrova, Jamie shared perspectives on how businesses can find clarity in a time of rapid communication shifts, AI-generated content, and information overload. With over 25 years of experience, Jamie doesn’t just design logos—he helps companies explore and articulate who they really are.

The Hidden Cost of Fake Branding

“Brand is not the logo. Brand is not the color palette. Brand is a much deeper construct. It’s about identity.” For Jamie, a brand is not what a company looks like—it’s what it believes.

That’s why he compares brand discovery to a spiritual process. “Trying to pretend to be somebody that we aren’t is exhausting. The amount of effort required to pretend is often too high,” he said. “Eventually, we tend to regress back to who we really are.”

He advises against building brands purely based on external impressions or market research. “We don’t typically create brands. We discover the brand that’s there and find ways to communicate it.”

From Ignition to Activation: A Four-Step Branding Method

To make branding more structured and accessible, especially for executives, Jamie developed the IDEA Method—Ignite, Distill, Energize, Activate.

Ignite is the research and discovery phase. “Help us understand so we can earn the privilege to talk about the brand,” he said.

Distill defines brand strategy. “That’s where we write the brand platform,” including commitments, principles, tone of voice, and customer targets.

Energize brings the brand to life visually. “If I have a visual that reflects the brand strategy and communicates it quickly, that’s ideal—we can cut through the noise.”

Activate implements the brand in real-world touchpoints, from websites to packaging and even truck fleets.

Jamie added, “Think of branding as pre-marketing… It’s all the foundational work that happens before marketing.”

When Rebranding Supports Reputation Recovery

Jamie recalled a major rebrand for one of the largest auto parts companies in the U.S. After accounting irregularities led to an SEC delisting and the CFO going to jail, the company needed a fresh start.

“We renamed the company… restyled everything. Gave them a reason to believe,” he said. “The CEO chose to invest in rebranding. And it took about 10 years.”

The rebrand wasn’t the sole reason for the stock price increase, but it contributed significantly to the turnaround. “The team needed something to rally around,” Jamie remarked.

The Role of Brand in Internal Culture

Jamie emphasized that branding isn’t just for customers—it’s also for employees. He described a recent project for a 100-year-old haircare brand: “We trained the salespeople, the integrated marketing team, the influencers, the product team, and the executive team. Everybody.”

He suggests this internal energy is often crucial. “Spirited organizations tend to be highly effective. When people’s hearts and souls are in the game, and they believe in something, and they’re working together in unity—that’s when organizations often become highly effective and more profitable.”

A Free Tool for Exploring Your Brand Personality

To help companies begin their branding journey, Flux Branding offers a free tool called the Brand Decoder. “You adjust six sliders… and it will generate a brand personality type for you,” Jamie said. Options include dreamer, explorer, protector, or lover.

For larger companies, Jamie also offers a Brand Blueprint session. “I normally charge a thousand bucks for this, but for anybody listening to this podcast, I’ll offer it for free.”

Visit fluxbranding.com to try the tool or request a consultation.

 

Published by Jeremy S.

How to Ask Questions That Improve Workplace Dialogue

Workplace dialogue is a central part of collaboration, problem-solving, and innovation. But not every question contributes equally to that process. Some inquiries invite thoughtful discussion, while others may unintentionally shut it down. The difference often lies in how a question is framed, when it’s asked, and the intention behind it.

A carefully phrased question during a team meeting might help clarify priorities or reveal overlooked details. By contrast, a vague or overly critical question might cause defensiveness or confusion. Consider the difference between asking, “Why are we behind schedule?” versus “What factors contributed to the delay, and how can we adjust going forward?” The first might feel accusatory; the second opens the door to shared problem-solving.

People tend to respond more openly when a question signals curiosity rather than judgment. When the tone suggests a genuine desire to understand, colleagues are more likely to contribute honestly and constructively. Over time, these kinds of exchanges help build trust and make discussions more productive.

Effective questions don’t need to be complicated. A simple “Can you walk me through your thinking here?” can improve understanding and uncover details that might otherwise be missed. In contrast, a poorly timed or leading question can derail the conversation and distract from the topic. The best questions improve the flow of dialogue, help surface new ideas, and make space for different perspectives.

Read also: How Meeting Transcription Is Changing Workplace Productivity

What Makes a Question Useful Rather Than Disruptive in Team Conversations?

In a fast-paced work setting, time is limited and attention is divided. Asking a question that’s both relevant and timely can enhance a conversation, but doing so in a way that feels misplaced can be counterproductive. The key often lies in being aware of the context and observing how others are engaging with the discussion.

During a brainstorming session, open-ended questions tend to be more effective. A question like “What alternatives have we not explored yet?” keeps the focus on ideas and exploration. On the other hand, during a final review or decision-making meeting, a more focused question such as “Are we confident this timeline aligns with our resource capacity?” is more appropriate to the task at hand.

It also matters how the question fits into the rhythm of the conversation. Interrupting someone mid-sentence with a challenging question may cause frustration, while waiting for a natural pause and asking with curiosity creates a better tone. Timing allows the question to land in a way that others can respond to with thoughtfulness rather than defensiveness.

Asking useful questions also involves being aware of the setting. In large meetings, keeping the question concise and relevant to the broader group helps ensure it supports rather than distracts from the purpose. In smaller settings, there may be more space for follow-ups and clarification. A question that invites someone to expand on a point, such as “Could you say more about how that approach worked in the past?” shows attentiveness and encourages depth without steering the conversation off course.

How Can Asking the Right Questions Build Stronger Work Relationships?

Questions can do more than clarify facts—they can signal respect, interest, and engagement. When asked thoughtfully, they encourage others to share insights, explain reasoning, and feel heard. This not only improves dialogue but also strengthens relationships across teams.

A project manager might ask a colleague, “What challenges have you been facing with this task?” instead of assuming delays are due to lack of effort. This approach not only surfaces potential roadblocks but shows empathy and a desire to support. The tone of the question communicates partnership rather than oversight.

In one-on-one meetings, asking a peer, “What’s something you wish others on the team better understood about your role?” can create a space for honest reflection. It acknowledges that everyone’s contributions matter and that clarity benefits the group. Questions like this don’t just exchange information—they reinforce that the workplace is a space where perspectives are valued.

In cross-functional teams, where members may come from different departments or backgrounds, questions that bridge understanding are especially valuable. “How does this timeline affect your team’s other priorities?” shows a willingness to collaborate beyond immediate responsibilities. It also helps align expectations and reduce potential friction.

Building strong work relationships involves consistent, respectful communication. The right questions can reveal where alignment exists and where it may be missing. By approaching dialogue with curiosity rather than certainty, individuals create a more cooperative and inclusive workplace environment.

When Is It Most Effective to Ask Clarifying Versus Strategic Questions?

Different kinds of questions serve different purposes, and understanding which type to ask can guide conversations in more productive directions. Clarifying questions are generally used to ensure understanding in the moment. Strategic questions, on the other hand, look beyond the immediate discussion to address broader goals or implications.

Clarifying questions are particularly helpful when instructions are ambiguous or when someone is joining a conversation midstream. “Does this version include the updated data from last quarter?” or “Are we using the revised template moving forward?” helps prevent misunderstandings before they affect the outcome.

These questions tend to be shorter and more precise, aimed at confirming what’s already being discussed. They can often be asked quickly without derailing the flow of the meeting.

Strategic questions encourage reflection and forward-thinking. They might include, “How does this approach align with our long-term goals?” or “What assumptions are we making that could change down the line?” These inquiries take the conversation a step further, often introducing new angles or concerns that had not yet been addressed.

Both types of questions are useful but should be applied in different situations. Asking a strategic question during a tightly timed status update might be met with impatience, while asking a clarifying question during a planning session could miss the opportunity to shape broader thinking.

Knowing when to ask which kind comes with practice and awareness. Listening carefully, reading the room, and being mindful of the meeting’s purpose can help guide that decision and make the question more impactful.

Read also: Lifestyle Trends of High-Impact Employees: Key Insights for Employers

How Can Employees Cultivate the Habit of Asking Better Questions?

Developing the ability to ask questions that enhance workplace dialogue takes time, but it’s a skill that can be strengthened through consistent practice and reflection. One starting point is to prepare in advance. Before a meeting or discussion, thinking through what information is needed or what areas seem unclear can help frame potential questions.

Observing how others ask questions can also provide insight. Colleagues who consistently contribute valuable dialogue often do so not because they have more information, but because they ask questions that move the conversation forward. Noticing how they phrase questions, when they choose to speak, and what kinds of responses they receive can offer useful examples to emulate.

Reflecting on past interactions is another useful habit. After meetings, considering what questions were helpful, which might have gone unanswered, or where clarification could have improved outcomes allows for gradual improvement. This reflection builds awareness and encourages a more intentional approach in future conversations.

Even writing down potential questions before a meeting can help. This doesn’t mean reading from a script, but having ideas in mind often makes it easier to speak up. As confidence grows, the ability to ask spontaneously and with clarity tends to increase as well.

The goal isn’t to ask more questions—it’s to ask better ones. When questions are thoughtful, respectful, and timely, they contribute to a more collaborative and communicative workplace, benefiting both individual contributors and teams as a whole.

Understanding San Francisco’s School Enrollment Dynamics

School enrollment in San Francisco is shaped by a complex mix of demographics, housing, policy, and community preferences. Unlike many cities where neighborhood schools form the core of local education, San Francisco operates under a student assignment system that aims to balance diversity and access. This approach, while designed with equity in mind, adds layers of complexity to how families make school decisions—and how schools plan for fluctuating enrollment.

Housing availability plays a significant role. Families who might otherwise remain in the city often face affordability challenges, leading to relocation to surrounding counties. These moves can happen quickly, and when they do, schools experience shifts in enrollment that aren’t always easy to anticipate. A public elementary school in the western part of the city might begin the year near capacity but see a drop in enrollment by spring as families relocate due to lease changes or job transitions.

Meanwhile, the growth of new housing developments in areas like Mission Bay or the southeastern neighborhoods introduces new demand, sometimes faster than school infrastructure can keep pace. Some schools experience enrollment pressures, while others see under-enrollment and reduced staffing as a result. This uneven distribution reflects both the city’s physical layout and the demographic trends of who can afford to live where—and for how long.

Read also: Key Considerations for Parents on School Safety Plans in California

Why Do Families in San Francisco Navigate Enrollment Differently Than in Other Cities?

San Francisco’s enrollment process is not entirely neighborhood-based. Instead of automatically assigning students to their closest school, the district allows families to submit ranked preferences. The goal is to provide all students access to high-quality education, regardless of address. But this system also means families approach enrollment with a strategic mindset, weighing school reputations, language programs, commute times, and perceived safety alongside traditional academic considerations.

The city’s emphasis on choice adds another layer of unpredictability. A school in the Richmond District might draw students from across town due to a strong immersion program, while a nearby campus with lower application rates may see fluctuating numbers year to year. This dynamic can complicate long-term planning for school staff and district administrators.

Transportation and commute logistics also factor heavily into parental decisions. With many families relying on public transit or facing long commutes for work, the distance between home and school is more than just a number on a map. A school that is technically closer may not be chosen if transit connections are poor or if pickup and drop-off times conflict with family schedules.

Families often network informally to share impressions about school climate, teacher consistency, or how well a school supports students with specific needs. These personal insights influence decisions as much as—or more than—official data points, leading to enrollment patterns that reflect lived experience rather than formal policy objectives.

How Do Economic Pressures Shape School Enrollment in San Francisco?

San Francisco’s high cost of living affects almost every aspect of life in the city, including who enrolls in its public schools. As housing costs rise, some families opt to move out of the city before children reach school age. Others who stay may still choose alternative education options such as private schools, charter schools, or homeschooling, depending on financial circumstances and personal preferences.

Public schools in the southeastern part of the city, where housing remains relatively more affordable, tend to serve larger proportions of low-income families. These areas often experience more stable enrollment, but they also face other challenges, including limited access to enrichment programs or aging facilities. In contrast, schools in more expensive neighborhoods may see declining enrollment as fewer young families are able to settle there long-term.

The intersection of affordability and education sometimes leads to counterintuitive patterns. A highly regarded public middle school near a tech corridor may not be operating at full capacity because many of the families in that area opt for private education. At the same time, a less centrally located school may see increasing demand if it offers specialized programs or bilingual instruction that reflect community needs.

Economic factors also influence how families respond to the enrollment process itself. Understanding how to navigate the system—when to apply, how to rank preferences, or what transportation options are available—requires time and familiarity with district resources. Families facing economic hardship may find it harder to access this information, which can inadvertently affect their school choices.

What Role Does the City’s Student Assignment Policy Play in Enrollment Trends?

San Francisco Unified School District’s student assignment policy has long aimed to address issues of equity, access, and diversity. However, the implementation of these goals within a choice-based framework has produced mixed results. The current system allows families to list preferred schools, but final placement is subject to available space, priority criteria, and algorithmic assignment—all of which influence how enrollment plays out in practice.

Some families feel empowered by the ability to choose, while others experience frustration when preferences aren’t met or when placement results seem disconnected from practical needs. A family living near a school with open seats might still be assigned to one across town due to the lottery-based nature of assignments and the priority rules that guide them. This mismatch can lead to confusion, second-round reassignments, or decisions to seek other educational options entirely.

Policy reviews are ongoing, and proposed changes often generate spirited public debate. At the center of these discussions is a desire to make the process more transparent and outcomes more predictable. But any revision must balance logistical concerns, community preferences, and the district’s broader equity goals. Until then, families continue to navigate a system that asks them to plan thoughtfully without always offering clear pathways to desired outcomes.

Read also: Guide to Understanding Student Loan Repayment in San Francisco

How Are Enrollment Dynamics Affecting the Future of Public Schools in San Francisco?

Enrollment patterns have a direct impact on the viability and operation of public schools across the city. When enrollment falls below sustainable levels, the district may consider consolidating or repurposing schools. These decisions are never simple, as they involve not just logistics but also deep ties between schools and the communities they serve.

A school that’s under-enrolled may struggle to offer full programming due to limited funding, while another at capacity may need to adjust class sizes or staffing to accommodate demand. These shifts influence not only how resources are distributed but also how parents perceive a school’s stability and long-term future.

The city’s changing demographics, economic pressures, and policy framework all contribute to an evolving educational landscape. As new families move into emerging neighborhoods and long-standing residents face pressures to relocate, the makeup of student populations continues to shift. Some schools adapt by building out programs that meet emerging needs—such as dual-language instruction or STEM enrichment—while others may struggle to adjust.

In this environment, understanding enrollment dynamics is key to ensuring that public education remains accessible, inclusive, and responsive. It requires attention to both data and lived experiences, and a willingness to engage with a process that reflects the city’s broader challenges and aspirations.