The case for zero-scale impact

I’ve thought a lot about what it means to show up intentionally for impact over the last few weeks, especially after reading about society’s overuse of the word “intentional.” 

Society emphasizes large-scale numbers. Influencers amass thousands, if not millions, of followers, and encourage them to take specific actions or buy certain products. Social media platforms reward large audiences. Every day on LinkedIn, I see at least one post from a creator thanking their 50k, 100k, 200k followers (this is fun to try: search “thank you followers” in your LinkedIn search bar). Virality is a lofty goal many brands strive for. Authors who want to make The New York Times Best Sellers list must sell a minimum of 5,000 books (more for specific lists) in a single week.

The common thread? More is better. Ideally, a larger audience leads to more revenue, more eyes, and more growth opportunities—a bigger legacy.

But a large audience doesn’t equate to real, tangible impact. In these situations, “impact” might be short-term (e.g., someone might purchase a recommended product thanks to an influencer) and shallow (e.g., sure, someone on social media might have millions of followers, but how many are even paying attention to what they say?).

And in living intentionally — by Time Intentional’s philosophy of spending time on the things that matter most in a value-aligned way, living true to yourself, and leaving the spaces behind you better than you found them — I’d actually argue that less is more, and the results can be better.

And thus the idea of zero-scale impact was born. (I’ve searched high and low to ensure no one else has coined this term, has any associated trademarks, or won’t get me into trouble, so fingers crossed, lol.)

Zero-scale impact is a term I’m using to describe the idea that the more we focus on how we show up in our immediate circles, the greater the impact we can have and the stronger the legacy we can leave behind.