According to one Republican pundit, it apparently means the need for good old-fashioned conformism: Well, I think this guy seems to be missing something. Ironically, it's he who seems to be marching to the beat of previous generations. It's fascinating how, in the same breath, he manages to mention the example of people we admire and advocate that people conform to the roles that are handed to them. Do we admire the tons of people who can be "part of the team" by sitting in an office cubicle somewhere? Or do we admire the people who manage to beat the odds and 'stay true to themselves' while being successful? Would you agree that world of openness is a world of risks as well as possibilities? It's a world that seems to be asking that people take the risks to reach for the possibilities. But instead of advocating creativity and freshness in our approach, this guy advocates that we simply conform to whatever roles we happen to come across. Maybe there are millions of people who'd actually do well to take his advice, but I guess those are the same people who have no will to take on life as individuals with their own aspirations and personalities. I think this comment sums it up perfectly: It makes me think that he wrote this because there's he knows that business owners have a need for pliable drone-like workers who know nothing else in life but their jobs. Thoughts?