Blog

Fair warning: what follows below employs ostentatiously ornate language and sesquipedalian verbiage. It's up to you to interpret how much of it has been done deliberately, for effect.

I came across a LinkedIn post by Clara Costa titled "7 ways to spot ChatGPT copy." With tongue planted firmly in cheek, they facetiously pointed out hallmarks such as proper punctuation, starting sentences with capital letters, and even the correct use of "you're" vs. "your" as possible signs of AI authorship.

While humorous in tone, the post posits a provocative postulation: are we too quick to suspect AI at work in polished writing?

As someone who uses words like "albeit," "boon," and "behove" in everyday discourse, I've often wondered whether my penchant for elaborate vocabulary and verbose phrasing makes me sound more robotic than human. Although my use of abstruse words and recondite locution makes me sound ancient, more so than stilted.

In the very remote off-chance that it's still unclear at this point, I'm intentionally laying it on thick here. Just a smidge.

Combine that with my sporadic use of semi-colons and tendency to avoid contractions - I'll fight you on why "cannot" is the superior choice over "can't" in some situations - and I might unintentionally check quite a few of those AI markers.

I even question myself at times, though I'm always assured I'm not a robot whenever I play those little picture games that pop up sometimes.

My tedious proclivities aside, reality is nuanced. Yes, ChatGPT and similar tools are convenient. Yes, they are overused. Case in point, have you noticed how the word "elevate" has proliferated in marketing copy everywhere, whether it's within an epicurean context or on a billboard ad for plumbing services?

This is neither the fault of AI nor its users. Recall how not too long ago, people with an expansive vocabulary were often accused of relying too heavily on thesauruses. Rather, it reflects the exponential advancements in tools and technology and their increasing accessibility.

This holds true for many aspects of our lives, and when utilised for communication the phenomenon is amplified. Perhaps it could advocate for the judicious use of such tools.

I don't see this as a critique more than a call to appreciate the quirks and eccentricities that distinguish human writing, even if they sometimes align with "robotic" patterns. After all, isn't the charm of writing its ability to spark thought, conversation, or even just a quiet knowing smile to oneself?

And no, I won't conclude with a call to action or a pithy takeaway. Would ChatGPT end without some CTA or poignant conclusion?
Hah, I think not!
That, perhaps, is proof enough of humanity in my prose.
..
..
Now go read a book!

* Dang it! * 🤦‍♂️

Stephen

Oh, I love a good plan! The act of planning sharpens our focus, aligns our efforts, and creates a shared understanding. That said, meticulous planning can easily devolve into overplanning and analysis paralysis, where time spent perfecting a plan comes at the cost of action. I'm all too often guilty of this myself.

This isn't an argument for abandoning forethought entirely. Far from it. Striking a balance is key.

Meticulous planners may pride themselves on careful preparation, but their risk lies in missing opportunities while waiting for perfection. On the other hand, those who charge forward without a plan risk avoidable setbacks.

Success often lies somewhere in between, where deliberate preparation supports decisive action.

I was driven by Richard Muscat Azzopardi's LinkedIn post to reflect on the paradoxical nature of planning. While plans themselves often become obsolete as soon as the ink dries, the process of planning is invaluable.

Covey, Drucker, Allen, and countless others (Richard, you're in good company here!) have all underscored a timeless principle for bridging the gap between planning and execution: clarity on who is responsible for a task, what needs to be done, and by when it needs to be accomplished. Or, as Mark Horstman so elegantly puts it, who does what by when.

This deceptively simple concept eliminates ambiguity, making sure plans move beyond mere intention.



Here's how you can start applying these principles immediately:

• In meetings (whether one-on-one or with large teams), don't just decide that something needs to be done. Specify who will take action, and by when that task will be completed.
• For personal planning, use the same principle. The who is clearly yourself, but break down generic objectives into specific tasks and assign a date to them.
• Revisit plans regularly but keep moving forward. Adjustments are a part of the process, not a failure of the plan.

In essence, don't let planning become an end in itself. Instead, let it be the foundation for meaningful, measurable progress.

Now, if you'll indulge me, I've resisted the temptation to pepper this article with a bunch of adages, aphorisms and platitudes. So I'll just leave you with a list here.

If they help you keep in mind the balance between planning and execution, even if it costs me a bit of your respect, I'll consider it a win.

• No plan survives first contact.
• Plans are nothing; planning is everything.
• By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.
• The best-laid plans often go awry.
• A goal without a plan is just a wish.
• The difference between a dream and a goal is a plan.

Props to you if you can readily identify whom they're attributed to or are paraphrasing. If you can't, that's even better...go look them up, then practise the smug look you'll be wearing at your next trivia quiz.

You're welcome!

Stephen

Every founder dreams of building something remarkable. A business that's both impactful and rewarding. Yet, as Noam Wasserman so astutely outlines in his seminal 2008 HBR essay "The Founder's Dilemma", a choice often looms large: do you prioritise wealth or control? Or as it's often colloquially known, Rich vs. King.

This phrase evokes a decision paralysis that many entrepreneurs experience as they build their startups.

On one hand, there's the appeal of maintaining full control over every decision, vision and aspect of the company. On the other, there's the desire for financial success, the kind that comes from rapid growth and a profitable exit.

Control feeds our desire to lead with autonomy, while wealth validates the hard work and risk we take on.

This tension is aptly captured by the aphorism:



In the startup world, that saying takes on a practical meaning, which Wasserman thoroughly explored in his book, The Founder's Dilemmas: Anticipating and Avoiding the Pitfalls That Can Sink a Startup. He delves into the choice between wealth and control and examines the implications of each path. It's one of my favourites, and I strongly recommend reading it.

Here's the main takeaway: the truth is that the Rich vs. King trade-off isn't a problem to overcome; it's an opportunity to define your legacy as a founder.

Decisiveness as a superpower

The most successful founders aren't necessarily the smartest or the most innovative. They're the ones who make clear, intentional decisions and fully commit to them. The Rich vs. King dilemma is no different.

Choosing to prioritise control means aligning every aspect of your business - team, funding, strategy... - to protect your autonomy. You'll likely raise smaller rounds or opt for slower, more organic growth. This path is about building your company on your terms, even if it means sacrificing financial upside.

Conversely, prioritising wealth often involves relinquishing control in exchange for resources that can help your business grow rapidly. It's about understanding that stepping back from decision-making doesn't mean you're stepping away from your vision. It simply means trusting others to execute it at scale.

Both choices are valid. What matters is that you choose.


The trade-off entrepreneurs make - Founders' choices are straightforward: do they want to be rich or king? Few have been both.

The danger of indecision

Wasserman's research is clear: founders who try to have it all often lose both. When you refuse to prioritise, you send mixed signals to your team and investors. Your vision becomes diluted, your growth stalls, and your relationships suffer.

You can see this play out in businesses where founders were unwilling to make hard calls. They insist on staying at the helm of every decision while also seeking aggressive funding. The result? They lose credibility with their investors and morale within their teams.

Contrast this with founders who lean into their choice. When they prioritise wealth, they negotiate hard and clearly with investors, securing terms that balance their personal goals with the company's needs. When they prioritise control, they set boundaries early and either choose funding partners who share their vision or they bootstrap to maintain independence.

A framework for clarity

If you're a founder wrestling with this dilemma, here's a framework you'll find useful:

1. Define your goals. What's driving you; autonomy or financial success? Be brutally honest with yourself.
2. Align your strategy. Look at your company's needs. Does your growth plan require heavy investment or patient, steady scaling?
3. Communicate transparently. Share your priorities with your stakeholders: co-founders, team, and investors. Clarity builds trust and makes sure you're all moving in the same direction.

Embrace Rich vs. King

The Rich vs. King trade-off isn't about sacrifice. It's about purpose. By making a clear choice, you're not just navigating challenges; you're laying the groundwork for a business that aligns with your true goals. As Wasserman shows, founders who take ownership of their decisions are better equipped to build sustainable companies and realise their vision with purpose.

So, ask yourself...what do you want most as a founder?

Choose wisely. Then commit fully.

Stephen

Do you agree with the blanket statement that "meetings are bad, unproductive and a complete waste of time"?

I don't.

Well, if you're in a meeting that is indeed bad, unproductive and a complete waste of time, then yes, that meeting is bad. If you're not, it's not. Sounds like a bunch of useless tautologies, but it's really that simple.


Is this what your meetings usually look like?

The tricky part is...wait for it...making sure that a meeting is run properly.



Yeah, yeah, I know. Easier said than done right? True, but it's not that hard. If you can chair a meeting properly, then meetings become the ultimate tool for a team because they facilitate communication and knowledge spread. How else can you communicate and discuss complex ideas in a fast, clear and efficient manner? Don't start pointing to online collaboration tools; you need verbal communication:

• Information is both shared and received faster this way
• You can be more expressive and nuanced through the use of tone, gestures, body language and props (whiteboard, pen & paper, etc...)
• It's the most practical method of holding an active discussion

So how can you run an effective meeting?
Note: most work-related conversations between two people are also considered meetings in this context.

Here's a handy set of rules I try to stick to. They originate from lessons learned through my own experiences which were heavily seeded by the various books and snippets I've read over the years and assimilated into my processes. The most influential of these is a book about decision making titled The Effective Executive, by Peter F. Drucker.

Caveat emptor: these rules illustrate an ideal. You aren't always in a position to dictate your meetings' structure, and when you are it's quite rare that you're able to run things exactly the way you want them. Nevertheless, they are what you should be aiming for; at best you end up with an effective hybrid of sorts and at worst you learn something and gain experience. Over time they will become second nature.

Before the meeting

• Decide its purpose, agenda, time, duration and venue. Communicate these clearly, and in advance, to meeting participants
• Only essential people should attend. Here's a trick: don't ask yourself whether a person needs to be there (you'll end up answering "yes" most of the time). Instead ask yourself what costs more: this person's absence or their presence? If their absence invalidates (i.e. wastes) the meeting or will cost you an unreasonable or impractical amount of follow-up work afterwards, then they should attend.
• Prepare for the meeting; do your homework.

The meeting itself

• Run the meeting in an appropriate format (see list below)
• Someone should keep minutes. Their format should be practical and relevant to the nature of the meeting. For example internal meetings between colleagues can have casual, short (but clear) notes. Important meetings between executives of different bodies should be more formally minuted and structured.
• End the meeting the second its purpose has been fulfilled. Don't raise other matters for discussion.
• Always sum up before adjourning; it only takes a minute. Summarise the main discussion points, any conclusions drawn and decisions that were taken. Any tasks assigned during the meeting should be re-stated including who's responsible for them and by what deadline.

After the meeting

• Send an email to all attendees with a copy of the minutes which, if taken properly, should include all relevant details you went through in your end-of-meeting summary. If this isn't the case, replicate your summary within the email (and appoint someone else to minute the meeting next time).

Obligatory stock photo of a trendy, hip meeting

Meeting formats

Purpose: to prepare or agree on a formal statement/announcement/text/document/statute etc...

• someone should prepare a draft beforehand
• after the meeting, that same person should also be responsible for finalising the document and distributing it to the participants

Purpose: to make an announcement

• should be limited to the announcement (and to discussing it if necessary)

Purpose: one person is reporting something to participants

• should be limited to that report and a discussion about it

Purpose: several persons are reporting something to participants

• discussions on the reports should not be held
• entertain questions for the purposes of clarification only
• if the reports are lengthy, or there are a lot of them, these should be distributed to attendees well in advance and then a stricter and preset time limit should be imposed on each report

Purpose: to inform someone about something, or to bring them up to speed

• that person should just listen and only ask questions if they need further clarification
• no discussions

Stephen

Everyone loves a success story!

The internet is rife with inspirational stories of how people have beaten the odds and triumphed in their pursuits and endeavours. More often than not, such stories are presented to us in a manner which encourages us to see what these people did right in order for us to learn from their successes and hopefully replicate their positive results. The same holds true for articles which provide "tips and tricks" or advice from prominent individuals regarded as experts in their field. We read these stories to draw inspiration, to increase our knowledge of the field, or perhaps simply as a morale booster to see us through tough times...a bookish pep-talk of sorts. While this could be beneficial, if we focus solely on these success stories, we run the risk of always looking at a one-sided picture, a half-truth.

The stark reality is that many, many stories are in fact, to some degree, failures. However, nobody enjoys reading about how difficult it is to achieve our goals, or how many people have already tried and failed at doing exactly the same thing we are trying to do. Besides being a hit to our morale, we tend to think that since they must have done something wrong, they aren't the ones to learn from. So we look towards the celebrity figures as the sole source of wisdom.

What we fail to realise is that failures probably offer us much more valuable information than the successes. By seeing where things went wrong, we learn how to avoid doing the same mistakes. I'm not saying that we should focus on the negative rather than the positive. That would still be the same issue, albeit in reverse. One must have a healthy dose of both and look at all the available information.

Naturally the issue is much more complex than that, but the basic concept is that we must not blindly separate the winners from the losers or even fail to recognise that there are, in fact, losers in every scenario.

If you're not one to be deterred by lengthy articles, I strongly suggest you read David McRaney's article on Survivorship Bias. It's a very interesting read and extremely well written.

So if you're trying to start a profitable business and are in the process of understanding what works and what doesn't, make sure you don't fall victim to survivorship bias.

Stephen