I have stayed too long in places that were clearly broken. I have also left too early in situations that may have been mine to fix. And when I look back honestly, the difference was not always visible in the moment, because everything had a good explanation. My ego had one; my fear had one. My discipline had one. Even my avoidance had one.

From my evening reflections.

That is why I distrust so much of the modern leadership conversation.

Don’t tolerate disrespect.

Set better boundaries.

Lead with empathy.

Create clarity.

All of that can be true, but it often becomes too clean, too comfortable, too detached from the reality of building, leading, losing, deciding, and carrying consequences.

Is disrespect anything of relevance in an SHTF situation?
Will empathy save me in that moment?
How to actually create clarity out of nothing in the midst of chaos, sleepless nights, and pure exhaustion – Is that already a sign that I should leave my post? Do I need to endure, or run away? Aim for change, or leave it to the indifference?

What happens when the situation is not clean? When happens when the pressure is real, the budget changes overnight, the CEO overrules decisions, the most important client interferes, the team is afraid, and I am still expected to lead? Do I leave because I feel disrespected, or do I stay because this is exactly where my character is being tested?

I don’t ask this from theory.

I ask it as someone who has failed here.

I have failed in leadership.

I have made bad decisions.

I have reacted from ego and later called it principle.

I have endured things too long and called it discipline.

I have resisted discomfort and dressed it up as wisdom.

And the painful part is that all of these can feel noble while they are happening. Leaving can feel like self-respect. Staying can feel like strength. But what if both are sometimes just different ways to avoid reality? What if the real question is not whether I was disrespected? Or, what if the real question is:

Did I stand my ground long enough to understand what was actually happening?

Not silently, nor heroically; and not as the suffering entrepreneur who carries everything alone, as I liked to see myself in calm moments. But as someone willing to stay in contact with reality.

Did I speak the truth clearly?

Did I make the tradeoff visible?

Did I push where the real constraint was, upward, sideways, not only downward toward my own people?

Did I try to change the system, or did I only manage the symptoms closest to me?

Be honest with yourself here, Adrian.

That distinction matters. A lot of leaders manage their teams because the teams are reachable. But the real obstacle may sit above them. The CEO, CFO, and the client. The budget decision nobody wants to name, or just the missing budget itself. The interference everyone has normalized. And then we call it people management. But is it? Or is it avoidance with a professional title?

Who was I? —Who am I?

Let’s be honest: we need to spend less time on “managing” others and more time on actually improving ourselves.

I think this is where ownership becomes real. Not when everything is calm. Not when everyone is respectful. Not when the company gives me clean authority and clean constraints. That’s wishful thinking anyway. Ownership becomes real when the system pushes back, and I still refuse to collapse into blame, ego, or silent tolerance.

So the synthesis I keep coming back to is this:

I don’t leave because my ego is hit. I stay, stand my ground, and try to change things. If I’ve done that fully and the system still doesn’t move, I leave without regret.

So, I did 8 years ago. But it took 8 years to get there, and not as clean as my synthesis, but let’s treat it as an MVP back then. Things have changed a lot since then.

That sounds simple, but it is not. Because the first enemy is usually not the system. It is me. My need to be respected, the need to be seen as right, or the wish to be the strong one. My temptation to confuse endurance with wisdom. My temptation to confuse leaving with clarity. Before I can read the system, I need to read myself. And that is uncomfortable, because sometimes the system is not the issue yet. Sometimes my reaction is. Or is it most often?

But there is another danger. If I am disciplined, I can endure a lot. Maybe too much. I can tell myself, I am learning. I am growing. I just need more time. And maybe that is true. But at some point, the honest question becomes: Is anything moving? Not in my head and not in my intention – In the system.

Do people respond differently? Do decisions become clearer? Does ownership increase? Does truth create movement, or only silence? Because if nothing moves, maybe staying is no longer courageous. Maybe it has become an identity. And that is hard to admit, especially for people who built their lives around not giving up.

The first 10,000 hours of mastery (M. Gladwell) for me were to fool myself masterfully.

So I don’t believe in the simple version anymore.

Leaving when disrespected feels too shallow. Endure everything feels too blind. Maybe the harder path is to stay long enough to understand, stand your ground long enough to test reality, push hard enough to see whether change is possible, and then accept the result without drama.

Because I take myself into the next business, the next project, the next room. The same ego. The same fears. The same avoidance patterns. The same needs to be respected. The same temptation to leave when the mirror becomes uncomfortable. The same me.

So maybe the question is not "Should I stay or leave?"

Maybe the better question is:

Have I become honest enough to know why I am doing either?

—Adrian

“What am I actually supposed to do today?”

That is the moment where people often say they need clarity. But I think clarity is often misunderstood. Clarity is not a permanent mental state. It is not the absence of uncertainty. It is not the magical moment where your whole future becomes visible and every next step feels safe. That version of clarity is mostly fantasy.

For me, clarity is more operational. It is the point where you can see the next right action clearly enough to commit to it. Not forever. Not perfectly. Just enough to move.

That distinction matters.

Because if you expect clarity to remove uncertainty, you will wait too long. You will keep thinking, planning, consuming, asking, comparing, and preparing. But life does not become clear before you act. Often, it becomes clearer because you act.

The Stoics understood this very well. Epictetus said:

“First say to yourself what you would be; and then do what you have to do.”

Simple, yet challenging... That is a very easy sentence, but it contains a whole operating system. Identity first. Action second. Not mood first. Not certain first. Not external permission first.

Your energy is limited; use it wisely

This is why I bring mentoring back to the day so often. Your mission matters. Your vision matters. Your potential matters. But none of these things are completed today. They are direction, not a daily workload. Today you only have today’s energy, today’s attention, today’s discipline, today’s resistance, and today’s opportunity to act.

So the better question is not: “Where will I be in the future?”

The better question is: “Who must I be today, and what is the next action that proves it?”

That is where the Mirror-Book idea comes in for me. The page becomes a mirror. Not a place to perform, not a place to write endless thoughts, not a place to drown in emotion. A mirror.

• What is true?

• What is in my control?

• What is in my influence?

• What is not mine at all?

• What is the signal for today?

• What will I not do, so that the important thing has room to happen?

This is not productivity theater. It is baseline work.

Because clarity without a baseline does not hold. You can have one inspired evening, one strong conversation, one great insight, and by Wednesday, the old pattern returns. That is homeostasis. The system pulls you back to what is normal. Your old habits, old avoidance, old distractions, old emotional reactions, and old level of self-trust.

So the work is not to chase peak clarity. The work is to raise the baseline.

In the morning, you define the signal. In the day, you practice. In the evening, you review. What did I actually do? Where did I drift? What was a fact, and what was only a story? What did I learn from today’s action? What is the smallest next action for tomorrow?

That loop is where clarity is rebuilt. Not once. Daily.

And this is also why clarity is connected to courage. A vague day is easy to escape from. A clear signal creates responsibility. When you write down what you commit to, you remove some of your own hiding places. You can no longer pretend that the problem was only confusion. Sometimes the problem was that you saw the next step, but did not want to take it.

That is not a moral failure. That is resistance. And resistance loses power when it is made concrete. So clarity is not knowing everything. Clarity is reducing the day to something you can actually own. One signal. One boundary. One next action. One honest evening review.

Before you demand clarity for your whole life, get it clear today.

Because today is where your character is practiced.

And tomorrow will not become clearer by avoiding today.

—Adrian

That is true, but it is not the full problem. The deeper problem is not only the time you lose. It is the inner noise you collect.

Every post asks for something: your attention, your emotion, your opinion, your reaction. And the more you move through the feed without discipline, the more you allow other people to decide what your mind will carry for the rest of the day.

You read one post about the economy, another one about politics, another one about a broken industry, another one about someone else’s success, another one about a conflict you are not part of, a problem you cannot solve, a fear you cannot act on. And suddenly your mind is full.

• AI will replace XYZ …

• The war will spread …

• In 5 years from now, you cannot afford…

• Oh, a funny cat video …

Your mind gets fragmented; you get distracted. Opinions you did not need, fears you cannot process, biases you did not consciously choose, emotional reactions that now follow you into your real work, your conversations, your leadership, your family, your body.

Is that actually a good idea?

An opinion is not free

This is where stoic practice becomes very practical. Stoicism is often reduced to the dichotomy of control, and yes, that is one of the most useful starting points. There are things that are up to us, and things that are not. But the practice is not only to know this intellectually. The practice is to notice the moment when your attention begins to attach itself to something outside your control, and then choose differently.

Because an opinion is not free. An opinion costs attention. It costs emotional energy. It creates a small internal commitment. Once you form it, you start defending it, feeding it, filtering the world through it.

The next time a similar topic appears, you will be easier to hook. The reaction comes faster. The judgment feels more natural. The bias becomes smoother.

This matters because clarity is not a mindset quote; it is operational capacity. For leaders, coaches, mentors, founders, and anyone carrying responsibility, this becomes expensive very quickly. You cannot spend the morning being emotionally pulled through ten topics outside your control and then expect to enter a hard conversation with calm precision. You cannot allow your nervous system to be trained by the feed and then expect to lead from reason.

“Men are disturbed not by things, but by the views which they take of things.”
— Epictetus, Enchiridion

Subscribe now

🍀 Subscribe to become a supporter and learn techniques to master self-control and reflection to help prepare you for the noise of the modern world. This helps me to create more videos and content like this ❤️

The feed is not neutral

The feed is designed to create engagement. Engagement often means emotional activation.

Anger works.
Fear works.
Envy works.
Outrage works.

Even cuteness works because it still pulls you away from the signal you chose for the day.

This does not mean every video, every post, or every piece of news is bad. That would be too simple. Some content sharpens you. Some ideas help you think better. Some conversations bring you closer to your own mission. Some posts create useful reflection. Some perspectives can improve your leadership, your craft, or your character.

The question is not whether content is good or bad. The question is whether this specific input deserves a place in your mind today.

Before you form the next opinion, ask three questions:

Can I control this?

Do I have the ability and capacity to influence this?

Will this improve me or others?

If the answer is no, the disciplined move may not be to think harder. It may be to walk away.

Walking away is a leadership practice

That sounds simple, but it is not easy. Walking away feels like losing. It feels like leaving something unresolved. The mind wants closure. The ego wants a position. The feed wants a reaction.

But leadership starts with self-command. If I cannot decide what gets access to my attention, then I am not leading myself. I am being led by whatever is most emotionally effective in front of me.

That is uncomfortable to admit. I have those days too. Days when I drift. Days when I knew what the signal was, but I followed the red signal instead. Days when I check something quickly and then realize that I gave away more than time. I gave away mood, clarity, and momentum.

The point is not to hate yourself for that. That is also just another emotional spiral. The point is to see it.

“It is not things themselves that disturb us, but our opinions about things.”
— Epictetus

The page becomes a mirror

This is why reflection matters. A daily mirror, whether in a journal, a notebook, or a simple evening review, helps you ask: What did I actually do today? Where did my attention go? Which signals did I follow? Which opinions did I collect that had nothing to do with my path?

The page becomes a mirror. Not to shame you, but to restore your agency.

Because the real danger is not one wasted scroll. The real danger is building a habitus of reaction, a default posture in which your mind is open to every external trigger and closed to your chosen direction.

That is how people slowly lose themselves. Not in one dramatic failure, but in small daily permissions. A little outrage here, a little comparison there, a little fear in the morning, a little distraction before the hard thing, a little opinion about something far away from your real sphere of action.

And then, at the end of the day, you feel tired, but not fulfilled. You were active, but not aligned. You consumed, reacted, judged, maybe even argued internally. But did you move toward your potential? Did you act within your control? Did you improve something real? Did you become more worth following?

Return to what is yours

That is the stoic mentoring question. Not: Did you feel calm all day? But: Did you return to what is yours?

Your attention is yours. Your judgment is yours. Your next action is yours. Your preparation is yours. Your standards are yours. Your ability to pause before reacting is yours. Everything else must earn its place.

So today, maybe the practice is not as disciplined in the abstract. Maybe it is much smaller. Notice the next hook. Pause before you form an opinion. Ask whether it belongs to your control, your influence, or neither.

And when it belongs to neither, do something very difficult and very simple: walk away.

—Adrian

Paid Subscriber Practice: The 5-Minute Mirror-Book

And I think this is where it gets uncomfortable.

Because many of us already know enough to take the next step. We have seen enough patterns. We have had enough conversations. We have lived through enough things. We are not empty. We are not without value.

But still, there is this strange waiting. That was, and sometimes is still, an issue for me.

Waiting for more clarity, more confidence, more proof. Waiting for the timing to feel right. Waiting for the message to be sharper. Waiting for the moment where it suddenly feels safe to be visible, direct, committed, or responsible.

But maybe this moment does not come – Okay, it’s very unlikely that this one ever comes. We actually need to get there instead.

Maybe the next level is not asking for more preparation. Maybe it is asking for more honesty?

And that honesty can be simple, but not easy.

I can take the first step already.
I can say the thing more clearly.
I can start the conversation.
I can publish the thought.
I can make the offer.
I can decide.

Not as the finished version of myself. But as the version that is willing to move, willing to fail, willing to get up again. Because potential is a strange thing. It feels inspiring when it is far away, but it becomes threatening when it asks for action.

As long as it stays in the future, nobody can judge it. Nobody can reject it. No one can see where it is still rough. But the moment you take the first real step, the dream becomes visible, and with visibility comes friction.

Maybe that is why we sometimes hide behind improvement.

We call it strategy or positioning. We call it research. Sometimes it is. But mostly it is just fear wearing better clothes.

And I know this from myself as well.

I can think endlessly about the next version of something. The better structure. The clearer message. The stronger system. And there is value in that, but only up to the point where thinking still serves movement.

After that, it becomes a very polished way of standing still.

Most professional growth is built on the belief that people can change. That someone can see themselves more clearly, take responsibility, and act differently. But then the uncomfortable question is obvious:

Do we still believe that for ourselves?

Or do we only believe it when we are observing someone else from the outside?

“First say to yourself what you would be; and then do what you have to do.”
—Epictetus

Maybe your potential did not disappear. Maybe life just got louder. More responsibilities. More opinions. More comparison. More proof that things can fail.

But still, you can see the next step in you.
So the Sunday question is not:

Am I ready?

Maybe the better question is:
What is still in my control today?

And where am I already capable, but still acting like I need permission?

—Adrian

PS: This is also why I use the Mirror-Book technique.

Not as normal journaling.
More as a daily mirror.

In the morning, I write down who I want to be today, what actually matters, and what I will not do.

In the evening, I look back at what I did, where I got stuck, what was in my control, and what the next honest step is.

It helps me stop turning potential into a fantasy. And start turning it into evidence.

Give it a try for yourself:

Is it an intention?

Or is it whatever reaches you first?
Because something always does.

A message. A mood. A thought you didn’t question. A sentence that felt right…
Before you checked it.

And once that first layer is in place, something subtle happens. Everything that follows starts to align with it. You don’t notice it as an influence.

It just feels like:

“that makes sense”

So maybe the question is not:
Can the mind be programmed?
It clearly can.

The better question is:
Who sets the direction first?

You?
Or whatever gets there before you do?

The Stoics treated the beginning of the day as a control point. Not a ritual for motivation, but a moment for orientation; the “before” regarding input, pressure, and reaction.

Why does that matter so much?
Once the day is underway, how often do people really choose?

When the first Slack messages hit, when a bug gets labeled urgent, when a stakeholder says “just quickly,” when a senior engineer opens five tabs and loses the original problem after ten minutes, what is actually leading then?

Usually not judgment → It’s momentum.

“First say to yourself what you would be; and then do what you have to do.”
Epictetus, Discourses, Book 3, Chapter 23.
💪

What is deciding who you will be today?

That is the point of the Stoic morning. Decide in advance what kind of person you will be that day, how you want to respond when pressure rises, which shortcuts you refuse to take, and what matters enough to ignore the rest.

A Tech Lead sees this quickly in real life. If the morning starts without a frame, what happens? Slack fills the gap. The most anxious person in the room sets the tone. An urgent label quietly becomes a priority. A meeting with no owner becomes your problem. By noon, are you leading the day, or has the day already recruited you into its chaos?

The same thing happens to developers. A ticket looks easy. Then another message comes in. Then a browser tab opens “just to check one thing.” Then AI generates code faster than you can review it. Then the day ends with a lot of motion and very little clarity. Was the problem complexity, or was it that no standard was set before the speed arrived?

“The mind of a wise man is not disturbed by events.”
Hierocles

Who is setting your frame?

These are simple questions, but they do important work. They set a frame.

And once a frame is set, the day starts to organize itself around it.

If you do nothing, a different frame is set for you. Urgency decides. Noise decides. Other people’s priorities decide.

Someone always decides this for you.

You will still act, of course. But from what? From whatever reached you first. That is why many capable people feel reactive, even when disciplined. They are disciplined inside a frame they did not choose.

How often does that happen in developer work? A senior starts the morning wanting to do deep work, then a production question arrives, then a teammate asks for review, then an AI-generated diff looks “almost done,” and suddenly the whole day is being lived as a sequence of responses. Was there a lack of discipline, or just no chosen orientation strong enough to survive first contact with the day?

A practical way to take back that first move is simple. Three lines. Written, not just thought. Why written? Because a thought stays negotiable. Writing starts to harden the standard.

Today I am … When X happens, I will … I will not …

This is not journaling for reflection. It is pre-alignment.

Before the day starts, you define:

• identity

• response

• boundary

What changes once those are defined?

You notice different signals, hesitate less in moments that used to pull you off track. You recover faster when you drift; You are no longer deciding from scratch each time; you are returning to a decision already made.

Is that not what most people actually want when they say they want more discipline? Not more intensity, but fewer useless negotiations with themselves?

“We should not trust many people to tell us what we ought to do, but rather train ourselves to judge rightly.”

Musonius Rufus

Consider a Tech Lead.

Without a defined frame, the day fills itself:

• Slack messages pull attention

• Urgent bugs redefine priorities

• meetings dictate the narrative

By noon, everything feels important.
So everything gets partial attention.

How often does this happen? A delivery issue appears, two people escalate at once, a product manager asks for an estimate, and now the Tech Lead is half in incident mode, half in planning mode, and fully in reaction mode. At that point, what exactly is being led?

Now compare that to a defined morning orientation:

Today I am focused on clarity over speed.
When urgency appears, I slow the conversation and define the scope.
I will not accept vague work or unclear ownership.

Same environment.Different behavior.
Not because the situation changed. Because the filter did.

Or take a Senior Developer working with AI-assisted coding.

Without a frame:

• output increases

• decisions accelerate

• understanding quietly decreases

It feels like progress.
Until complexity accumulates.

Is that not one of the easiest traps right now? The code appears fast, the diff looks plausible, the test passes, and the merge feels justified. But if nobody paused to ask, “Do I actually understand what this changed?” where does the future confusion come from?

With a defined frame:

Today, I am responsible for understanding, not just output.
When code is generated, I review the structure before accepting speed.
I will not merge what I cannot explain.

Again, nothing external changed.
But the standard is different.

And standards shape outcomes more than tools do.

What is happening underneath this is not mystical.

Defining identity early makes behavior more likely to align with it. Specifying a response in advance reduces hesitation. Setting a boundary lowers the number of decisions you need to make later. Orienting attention changes what you even notice during the day.

In simple terms, you are making it easier to be consistent with yourself.

And what is inconsistency, in many cases, if not acting from whichever frame won the morning?

This also explains why the practice fails for some people.

• If the statement is vague, nothing anchors.

• If the identity is unrealistic, it is ignored.

• If there is no review, the signal fades.

• If it becomes performance, it loses contact with reality.

The point is not to declare something impressive; it’s to define something you can actually live through the next few hours.

A simple daily structure can look like this:

Today I am the person who… (one trait that matters today)

When X happens… (one predictable pressure point)

I will… (one concrete response)

I will not… (one boundary that removes drift)

At the end of the day:
- Did I act as defined?
- Where did I drift?
- What needs to be adjusted for tomorrow?

This is the purpose behind a Mirror-Book style practice.

The purpose is not to collect thoughts, but to create a stable baseline: a way to separate signal from noise before the day fragments it, and a way to return to a chosen direction when pressure builds.

If you do not set that baseline, something else will. It will not announce itself; it will simply feel like your own thinking. And that is the part worth noticing.

So the question is not whether your mind is being shaped.

It is whether you are doing it on purpose.

—Adrian

Either AI replaces engineers in a few months, or it turns every company into some kind of magical high-output machine.

From where I stand, neither description is honest. What I see is something else.

AI often makes work faster, yes. But in many teams, it also makes work more toxic. Not because the tool is evil, but because speed changes pressure, and pressure changes people.

That is the part I think many people are missing.

I am not even basing this mainly on studies (examples: 1 2 3 ), although some of them point in a similar direction. I am basing it on the pattern itself, on what I have seen in software work, leadership dynamics, and the way organizations behave as soon as they believe something should now be possible faster. That is the real shift. The moment a company believes work can move faster, deadlines do not stay where they are. They move.

And they do not just move a little. They compress.

What could previously be discussed becomes expected. What used to be a reasonable turnaround becomes hesitation. What used to count as responsiveness becomes slowness.

That is what AI changes first in many environments. Not reality; expectations.

And once expectations are moved, they are very hard to move back.

You might know my personal stance on deadline-driven development; current trends in companies adopting AI seem to amplify the issue rather than provide possible relief.

Faster work does not feel like relief

A lot of people still talk about AI as if speed automatically creates spaciousness. As if faster output should naturally give people more time, more calm, more margin. Show me the organisation in which the sudden removal of a “bottleneck” leads to a general change of mind that things can be tackled.

That is not how organizations usually work.

If a team can create drafts faster, more drafts get requested. If engineers can prototype faster, more ideas get pushed into motion. If the product can produce specs faster, more specs arrive half-cooked. If non-specialists can suddenly generate something that looks plausible, more low-quality work enters the system disguised as progress.

So the work does not simply shrink. It expands.

And because it expands under the illusion of efficiency, leadership often notices the visible acceleration but misses the invisible cost.

That cost lands somewhere.

• Usually on the people who still have to think.

• Usually on the people who still have to review.

• Usually on the people who are accountable when the machine-generated speed meets real-world complexity.

That is why I do not think the AI story is mainly about replacement. I think it is about expansion, pressure transfer, and the concentration of accountability.

The bottleneck does not disappear. It moves upward.

Deadlines become faster

If nobody dies when the deadline slips, it was probably never an emergency, only pressure dressed up as one.

This is one of the clearest patterns.

AI does not just affect how fast something can be produced. It changes the social meaning of time inside the company. A deadline is never just a neutral date on a calendar. A deadline is a cultural signal. It tells people what pace is normal, what urgency is acceptable, and how much room there is for thought.

No one dies if a natural person sets an artificial date for an artificial, badly defined “goal”; often not even connected to any outcome.

Tech Leaders and AI

Once AI enters the system, many leaders quietly reinterpret time itself. They do not always say it openly. Sometimes they do not even realize they are doing it. But suddenly, the same amount of work is expected sooner. Or more work is expected in the same time. Or the planning stays sloppy because “the team has AI now.”

That last part is especially dangerous.

Instead of becoming more precise, organizations become more careless. They assume the tool can absorb the mess. They assume ambiguity is cheaper now. They assume bad upstream decisions can be compensated for downstream with speed.

But ambiguity does not vanish because generation is faster. A bad strategy does not become good just because drafts appear in ten seconds. Weak leadership does not become strong because someone can prompt out a prototype.

So what happens?

The deadline becomes faster on paper, while the cognitive burden becomes heavier in practice.

People have to validate more. Reject more. Clarify more. Repair more. Review more. Defend more. The calendar says acceleration. The nervous system says overload.

And then the usual cultural lie enters the room:
“If this is faster now, why are you still under pressure?”

That question is poison. Because it assumes typing was the work. It assumes the hard part was producing visible artifacts. It assumes software engineering was mostly transcription. It assumes that leadership was mostly about coordinating tasks. But the hard part was never mainly typing. The hard part was judgment. Trade-offs. Sequencing. Responsibility. Restraint. Integration. Human alignment.

AI can absolutely accelerate parts of the process. But when that acceleration is interpreted naively, it does not create peace. It creates deadline inflation.

This is where the toxicity starts

I do not mean toxicity in the cheap internet sense. I mean something more structural.

• Work becomes more toxic when pressure rises faster than clarity.

• Work becomes more toxic when expectations rise faster than system quality.

• Work becomes more toxic when visible speed becomes the moral standard and thoughtful resistance starts looking like underperformance.

Or in simpler terms, it becomes toxic when we lose our own ethics.

And that is exactly the kind of atmosphere AI can intensify. Not always. But very easily. Suddenly, there is more subtle suspicion in the room.

Why is this taking so long?
Why is review such a bottleneck?
Why is engineering pushing back?
Why do we still need that specialist?
Why can’t we just ship the AI draft and clean it up later?

And beneath those questions sits a more corrosive one:

🔴 What exactly are these people doing all day, if the machine is already doing so much?

That is where a team begins to rot.

Because once the visible output becomes disconnected from the invisible responsibility, the people carrying the real responsibility start being measured by the wrong thing.

Then, senior engineers become cleanup crews.
Then tech leads become emotional shock absorbers.
Then, principals become permanent reviewers of work they did not initiate and do not fully endorse.
And then everyone starts working in a low-level defensive mode.

More checking. More proving. More justification. More surface activity. Less calm thinking. Less deep work. Less patience.

And then comes the interpersonal toxicity.

Impatience rises. Respect falls. People become shorter with each other. Work gets handed over too early. The line between “draft” and “done” gets blurred. People stop owning quality fully because the whole system is already subtly signaling that speed matters more than completeness.

That is how culture degrades. Not through one dramatic event, but through repeated compression.

What is your opinion here? Let me know 👇

Leave a comment

AI exposes the company’s character

I do not think AI creates these problems from nothing. It reveals what kind of company was already there.

If a company has strong thinking, clear ownership, real technical standards, and leaders who understand the difference between speed and haste, AI can be useful. It can remove friction. It can help with exploration. It can support experienced people.

But if a company already confuses activity with value, AI becomes an accelerant. It accelerates bad planning. It accelerates premature execution. It accelerates the fantasy that every problem is now mainly a throughput problem.

And once that fantasy takes hold, the whole organization becomes harsher. Because now there is a permanent comparison in the air. Not just between one employee and another, but between a human pace and an imagined machine pace.

That comparison is usually stupid. But it is emotionally powerful.

It changes how people speak. It changes how quickly they get frustrated. It changes what they classify as acceptable delay. It changes how much empathy they have for careful work.

That is why I keep coming back to culture. Not as a soft topic, but as the operating environment in which tools either help or hurt.

If we don’t develop our culture deliberately and intentionally, it cannot become a culture worth living in; instead of taking ownership, people will silently quit.

If AI replaces developers by making them quit, it wasn’t AI’s fault, my good management friend.

The CEO-CTO gap gets wider

This is another pattern I keep noticing.

The higher up you go, the easier it is to mistake visible acceleration for genuine leverage.

A CEO sees that more can be produced.
A CTO sees that more now has to be governed.

A CEO sees compressed cycle times.
A CTO sees review burden, architecture drift, security risk, maintenance cost, and coordination overhead.

A CEO sees a possibility.
A CTO sees surface area.

Both are looking at something real. But they are not looking at the same layer.

That is where the internal story starts to split. A split is not alignment. I simply wanted to point that out once more, since it seems to be a major difficulty to understand that simple fact.

One side says, “We can move much faster now.” The other side says, “Only if you are comfortable lowering standards, increasing risk, or burning people out.”

If that gap is not handled honestly, toxicity grows very quickly.

Because then engineering starts feeling gaslit. They are told the work is easier now, while their lived experience is that the work has become noisier, more fragmented, and more difficult to defend – more and more a source of ever-compounding anxiety.

And leadership starts feeling resisted. They think the team is being conservative, slow, maybe territorial. But often the team is simply seeing the second-order effects earlier. This is why mature AI adoption is not mainly a tooling question.

It is a leadership maturity question.

Some older companies can actually be healthier here

This is one reason I sometimes think old-school SMBs can be healthier than modern, highly performative tech environments.

Not because they are more advanced. Often, they are much less advanced. But they are sometimes closer to reality.

A customer problem is more concrete. A bad process hurts faster. A useless feature is harder to justify for long. A relationship is more visible. Trust matters more openly. The company cannot hide behind dashboards and internal theater as easily.

In some modern software cultures, there is too much abstraction between action and consequence. Too much room for performative productivity. Too much room for people to confuse visible motion with value.

AI fits perfectly into that kind of environment. It produces a lot of motion. And if the culture was already addicted to motion, the addiction gets worse.

“Make the best use of what is in your power, and take the rest as it happens.”
—Epictetus

My own conclusion

I am not anti-AI. I use AI. I see the value. I think it can absolutely make strong people stronger.

But I also think many companies are telling themselves a flattering story.

They say AI is removing friction…
Often, what it is really doing is removing hesitation at the point of creation while increasing toxicity at the point of responsibility.

They say AI makes teams faster…
Often what it really does is make deadlines more aggressive, management more impatient, and the invisible work of good engineers even less legible.

They say AI boosts productivity…
Often what it really boosts is the amount of work entering the system, the amount of review required, and the amount of emotional pressure carried by the people who still have to make reality hold together.

That is the part I would watch very closely.
Not just output. Not just adoption. Not just speed.

Watch tone. Be aware of impatience. Obserce review load. Look for how often thoughtful people feel rushed. Realize whether the company is becoming more precise or just more hurried. Stay in control of whether deadlines are becoming smarter or simply shorter – that is absolutely in the power of the humans working together.

Because once speed becomes a cultural weapon, the damage is much larger than a missed estimate.

It changes how people relate to one another. It changes whether good people can still do good work without becoming cynical. It changes whether leadership is building an actual system or just driving everyone harder with a newer excuse.

That is why I think the real AI question for leaders is not whether the tool makes work faster.

It obviously can.

The real question is this:
What kind of culture does that new speed create?

And if the honest answer is more pressure, less thought, more suspicion, and faster deadlines with blurrier standards, then the problem is not that AI failed.

The problem is that the company used acceleration without wisdom.

A few external pieces have begun to describe adjacent patterns, which is worth noting. But I would not base the argument on them. The argument stands for me even without them, because the mechanism is visible in practice: once organizations believe output can be produced faster, they rarely convert that gain into calm; they convert it into expectation.

And expectation, unmanaged, becomes pressure.
Pressure, without clarity, becomes toxicity.

“If you seek tranquillity, do less. Or, more accurately, do what’s essential.”
— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 4.24, paraphrased from a common translation

—Adrian

I see the same mistake again and again in tech leadership, and because it is dressed up as diligence, people rarely question it.

Someone has a difficult meeting coming up. A conflict. A presentation. A pitch. A decision with political weight. So they prepare harder. More notes, more arguments, more details, more slides, more possible answers for every possible objection. They keep drilling on the technical side because that feels measurable, and because technical preparation gives the comforting illusion of control.

Then the moment comes, and they still fail.

Not because they lacked intelligence.
Not because they lacked expertise.
Not even because their idea was wrong.

They fail because pressure hits them at the human level, and they do not have enough reserves left to intervene between impulse and action.

That is the part I learned late in my life, and I would like to help others understand that one earlier – it saves so much hassle.

Self-control is depletable.

You cannot stay composed, patient, clear, and emotionally regulated all day just because you decided in the morning to be disciplined. That is not how it works. There will always be weak moments. There will always be hours when your system is thinner, your ego louder, your reaction faster.

And when you enter an important situation already exhausted, you are vulnerable from the start – you get to a starting line of a race refreshed as well, right?

This is why I lost so many leadership moments when I was technically prepared for it. I knew the topic, but I could not hold myself. I knew the argument, but I could not carry it with calm. I knew the right answer, but I reacted defensively, even aggressively at times, when challenged or became smaller when pressure entered the room.

Roy Baumeister popularized the idea that self-control behaves like a finite resource1. In his early ego-depletion research, the core claim was simple: after one act of self-control, people often perform worse on the next one.

That model became influential because it matched lived experience so well; anyone who has spent a full day regulating stress, suppressing irritation, and carrying responsibility knows that composure gets more expensive over time. At the same time, the research around ego depletion became contested, and later replication work did not always find the effect reliably. So I would not use Baumeister as proof that willpower works like a battery in a literal mechanical sense.

I would use him for the broader and still useful insight:
self-control is not something you should assume is endlessly available on demand.

Leadership gets harder when you are mentally and emotionally spent, and that is exactly why reserves matter.

In practice, leadership rarely breaks in the technical layer first.
It breaks in the human moment.

Someone questions your judgment. Someone pushes back in front of others. Someone gives feedback in a tone you do not like. Someone stronger, louder, or more dominant enters the room, and your body reacts before your reason does. You want to defend, interrupt, explain too much, justify yourself, retreat, or attack.

And the tragedy is this: you can be correct and still lose credibility in that exact moment.

Because credibility is not only built by correctness. It is built on how you handle pressure. That is why I care so much about reserves. The more reserves you have, the easier it becomes to intervene when something hits you. The more regulated you are, the more space exists between stimulus and response. And inside that space is leadership.

This is not a soft idea. It is an operational one.

It was about inner readiness. You do not wait for the hard moment to discover whether you can govern yourself. You practice beforehand.

A lot of people think preparation means accumulating more content. I think preparation begins earlier than that. Preparation means becoming someone who can remain usable under pressure. Someone who can think while challenged. Someone who can notice emotion without surrendering authority to it. Someone who can be hit by friction and still choose a response instead of merely having one.

The Stoics understood this better than many modern professionals do. They did not train calmness as decoration. They trained it because life would test them, and they wanted to remain sovereign when it did. Preparation, in the Stoic sense, was never just about plans. It was about inner readiness. You do not wait for the hard moment to discover whether you can govern yourself. You practice beforehand.

This is why practices like reflection, journaling, solitude, walking, or voluntary discomfort matter. Not because they sound wise. Not because they make a nice morning routine post. They matter because they build a stronger baseline. They help you process what would otherwise accumulate. They reduce internal noise. They make you less reactive, less brittle, less easily thrown off course.

That is also why I often say discipline is not only for output. It is also for recovery.

Angela Duckworth’s work2 is useful here, not because it proves that people can grind forever, but because it sharpens the difference between short-term intensity and long-term steadiness.

Her definition of grit, “passion and perseverance for long-term goals,” points to something many leaders miss: sustainable performance is not built from constant emotional strain, but from staying oriented, returning to the path, and continuing the work over time. In that sense, reserves matter because they protect continuity. If you are constantly depleted, you may still win isolated moments, but you become less capable of showing up with consistency, especially when leadership asks for repeated calm under pressure.

That is where grit becomes practical; not as macho endurance, but as the disciplined ability to keep going without constantly being knocked off course.

You Need Discipline To Calm Down Sometimes!

Many disciplined people misunderstand this. They use discipline to force themselves through work, but not to restore themselves for work. They spend all of their strength on execution and then wonder why they become fragile in meetings, impatient with people, or emotionally chaotic when something small goes wrong. They think the solution is even more pushing. Usually, it is not. Usually, the problem is that they are living on too little reserve.

You do not need discipline only to work. You need discipline to restore your ability to work well.

For me, one part of that is going outside. Running, walking, being away from screens, away from artificial urgency, away from all the manmade problem space we keep building around ourselves in tech. Another part is writing. My mirror-book practice is exactly for that reason. I do not use it as some decorative journaling habit. I use it to process the day, to surface reactions, to sort thoughts, to clean up what would otherwise remain unresolved inside me.

If I was irritated, I want to know why. If I felt envy, defensiveness, fear, anger, pride, hesitation, I want to see it clearly. If something wounded my ego, I want it on the page before it governs me in the next room. That is the point. Reflection is not self-expression. Reflection is self-regulation.

That is why the mirror-book helps so much. It gives me a way to notice patterns before they become identity. It helps me reduce residue. And residue matters. Because what people call burnout, chronic stress, leadership insecurity, or loss of confidence is often not just one dramatic event. Often, it is an accumulation. Unprocessed days. Unspoken fears. Repeated small humiliations. Suppressed reactions. Avoided truth. Compounding noise.

If you do not process your experience, it begins to process you.

And once that happens, technical preparation becomes less and less effective. You can keep compensating with knowledge for a while. Many smart people do. But at some point, the compensation fails, because what is missing is not information, it is inner order.

I see this often in senior people. Engineers, leads, even CTOs. They are highly competent but unstable in confrontation. They hesitate to challenge difficult personalities. And so did I.

I avoided the necessary conflict.
I became too political, too defensive, too eager to be liked, or too eager to dominate.

Not because we are weak by nature, but because they are underprepared in the deeper sense. We have not built enough reserves to meet the human difficulty of leadership.

That is why I think this topic matters more than yet another argument about tools, frameworks, or migration strategies.

Yes, those things matter.
Yes, architecture matters.
Yes, methodologies matter.

But we solve technical problems much more effectively once they are no longer blocked by fear, ego, emotional fatigue, and self-protective behavior.

The real bottleneck is often not capability. It is interference.

So, what do you do with this practically?

First, let us stop confusing more technical rehearsal with total preparation. You can know your topic and still be unprepared if you are exhausted, reactive, and thin-skinned.

Second, build a reserve on purpose. Not randomly, not when life allows it, but as a discipline. Sleep better. Walk more. Train. Journal. Reflect. Reduce unnecessary chaos. Accept that recovery is not indulgence when it serves responsibility.

Third, practice the intervention. When emotion rises, do not worship the first reaction. Notice it. Delay it. Name it if needed. Then act. Not perfectly, but consciously. This is where credibility grows. Not when you impress people with flawless knowledge, but when you remain steady in an imperfect moment.

Because that is what people remember. They remember whether you became smaller under pressure. They remember whether you rushed to defend yourself. They remember whether you stayed calm enough to think. They remember whether your presence stabilized the room or destabilized it further.

This is why reserves matter so much. They do not make you invincible. They make you more available to your better self when it counts.

And that is what leadership is in practice, again and again, not a title, not a theory, but the repeated ability to meet a difficult moment without handing yourself over to it.

So if you have an important meeting, a conflict, a hard conversation, a pitch, a presentation, then yes, prepare technically. Know your material. Clarify your thoughts. Do the work.

Marcus Aurelius opens one passage with a practical form of preparation:

“Begin the morning by saying to thyself, I shall meet with the busy-body, the ungrateful, arrogant, deceitful, envious, unsocial.”

The point is not pessimism.
The point is rehearsal.

If you prepare for friction, you are less likely to be controlled by it when it arrives. That is stoic leadership in practice.

But do not stop there.

Ask the more uncomfortable question: Do I have enough reserve to stay in control when the room pushes back?

Because if the answer is no, then you are not underprepared.

You are depleted.

And depleted people do not lead well.

—Adrian

My way to cope with it was computer games and online communities, which I created and maintained since I was 16, starting with Ultima Online shards and moving on to larger communities, playing daily into the night with hundreds of players. I was basically building a big hideout for myself to run away from a specific potential.

I was running away from becoming a responsible leader in the real world, someone who faces every challenge and is willing and capable of doing what it takes to lead their own people to their potential.

I have done something relatable in online worlds, while I wasn’t actually achieving anything that mattered to who I needed to become. For me, it became clear: “unless you become a professional gaming YouTuber, streamer, journalist, or pro gamer, these activities are procrastination disguised as progress, decoration.” And it felt good; important. It looked like meaning.

Since gaming is very common among fellow developers:
I still play games today, but I don’t use them as a hideout anymore. Sometimes I even play together with my children. The difference is the boundary: it’s recreation, not escape. And I’m determined that they won’t lose themselves in it the way I did.

About 8 years ago, things changed for me. I became a father, moved to live near the Black Forest, and we basically shifted everything to run a family well. Sounds cool, right? It was extremely stressful and life-changing for me. I suddenly had no time to lose myself in the old ways.

My inner Resistance was raging and throwing everything against me. It was a time of sleepless nights, exhaustion, and anxiety.

But this was the first time in my life in which I actually started to have deep discussions with a real human being on a regular basis, my wife Jennifer. That was the first time I really thought about what was, is, and will be. Reflection. Not really acceptance, but I started to understand.

This was around the time I got into two philosophies that work very well together and actually have the same thought models.

Steven Pressfield’s “The War of Art” with the idea of the Turning Pro moment; do your work and fight Resistance (capital “R”, he always made it an entity), and follow the Muses.

“The amateur plays for fun. The professional plays for keeps.” – Steven Pressfield, The War of Art

The ancient Stoics, or Stoicism: control what you can, become indifferent about what you cannot control, and build the wisdom to understand the difference. This was so touching for me, since it was close to the Serenity Prayer, while my childhood was tainted by alcoholism, an old burden I started to address in this moment as well.

So these three components, Jennifer, Steven, and the Stoics, were life-changing for me.

In my early streams and articles, I referred to Steven Pressfield a lot, but over time, Stoicism became the real practical philosophy I adopted.

The Stoic morning and evening reflection became my daily routine. I created my content there, many articles and many more videos. Those were a representation of what I was dealing with during that time: the challenges, the problems, and the experiences with people.

“No man is free who is not master of himself.” – Epictetus

Many things never made it into my articles or videos, since virtues are important to me. I have many negative, even disturbing thoughts about many people, but I keep them to myself and use them to practise indifference, the state of tranquility, or what I would actually call happiness.

By doing that, Stoicism became my new daily structure. I wasn’t playing computer games at all anymore by that time. I was totally focused on making progress. That was also the time I intensified mentorings and tech fellowships, especially for CTOs. I was known as “snackable CTO”, and this is how YouTube and Substack started back then as well.

About a year ago, after years of reflection, failure, and learning, I began to gain clarity about my own purpose. After having my own Turning Pro moment, or the rebirth as the Stoics say, I finally understood my actual purpose. I had clarity. I was certain. I saw the same signals every day for months.

“Begin at once to live, and count each separate day as a separate life.”
Seneca – From Letters to Lucilius.

I wasn’t the lower-self gaming introvert hiding himself, living a half-true life of entrepreneurship as a software developer.

I was learning discipline, failing often, trying again.

I was practicing virtue, imperfectly, but consistently.

I was becoming worth being amongst others, on the days I did the work.

For the most part, I was in control of my emotions. I was steering the ship and constantly following the same potential.

I was becoming aligned.

I was finding who I was supposed to be.

I was being reborn—slowly, daily, imperfectly.

That’s when I started to talk slowly but steadily about philosophy and, later, Stoicism.

I integrated Stoic ideas into mentorships and CTO fellowships. Insecure at first about whether people would actually accept it, since the world doesn’t seem prepared for it, an ancient practice and philosophy in the modern tech world. But I was wrong.

It turned out to be exactly what they needed.

In a world full of stress, noise, haste, and built-up anxieties, tech people tend to lose themselves in a unique grinder between tensions we cannot control.

Many of the tech leads I was working with were running away from something, building their safe spaces, and actively developing coping mechanisms, instead of taking control of their own actions and reactions, accepting that there are things they cannot change but can control what they do about it.

To my surprise, people started to journal, reflect, and accept who they are, and what kind of situation they might be in: the staff engineer who is afraid of losing their job, the CTO being totally alone and stressed out in a large migration between two big US companies, or the newly promoted engineering manager who is supposed to build a government app in a year as their first project with real responsibility.

Many focused on things outside their control—the same trap I’d been in. Many were distracted by the many things they were afraid of, or by the coming months, when something bad could happen.

We turned that into: let it happen. Focus on today, because we can change something about the future today. By doing so, we got back to controlling ourselves today, and by doing so, we influenced the people around us in a way that made the future much better than anticipated.

From snackableCTO to Stoic Tech Lead, why I use “Stoic” today

Stoics never called themselves Stoics. I did not for most of the time. The battlefield is your own mind. The enemy sits in yourself, disguised as the friendly supportive voice, the force that generates the most disturbing thoughts; the voice we need to accept is part of us, the voice our job is to control. I was too busy fighting that war.

But the changes in the last three years, by practising Stoicism with high discipline, were so magnificent for me, and the results of adopting its ideas were so real, that I decided to start speaking about it as a Stoic person.

Instead of just referring to it, I aligned it with the four leadership traits:

I. Credibility

II. Role Model

III. Mission & Vision

IV. Challenge

Using “Stoic” in your name makes it easier to align with each of them, refer to them, and explain them. I’ve found that most tech leadership challenges I’ve encountered can be addressed through self-discipline, commitment, and virtuous reflection.

The term “Stoic” helps explain what it’s about and, in a credible way, refers to a practical philosophy that has existed for centuries and is practised more than ever before. I want to be a role model for others. That is part of my found purpose and of being a leader, anyway. Being a possible role model for people willing to take up Stoicism to practise self-discipline became logical to me in a world with social media, something the ancients did not have.

In fact, the “Stoa”, the name-giving place where ancient Greek philosophers met to debate how to become better and live virtuous lives, isn’t much different from mentoring or public debates on Substack, LinkedIn, or on streams.

Even though I would fit more into the category of a “Neo-Stoic”, I pretty much like the old ways of “disciplina”, the idea of the “discipulus”; the way of phrasing that we are the pupil who wants to learn and is looking for learning, debates, and advice. That is what discipline is actually about, and I couldn’t reach my potential without it. I haven’t seen others reach theirs without something similar.

What’s next?

So, I continue my journey amongst so many fine souls in the tech industry, creating software and apps, fixing bugs, and living the weird, tedious, yet fascinating, fast-paced life of a developer. But I will do whatever I can to become a beacon for the people who struggle there and have lost the joy they once had.

Let’s debate and take the challenge together to make this world a better one, not only ourselves.

Thanks for reading. Appreciate your patience.

—Adrian

And still, something feels off.

They are not in danger. Nothing has gone wrong. But their body is slightly tense. Their breathing is shallower. Their thoughts begin to orbit around tomorrow.

You might still be physically at home, but internally, you have already stepped into next week. The sprint board exists in your imagination. Slack messages not yet written, replay in your head. Conversations you postponed during the week quietly return.

Nothing has happened yet.

And still, your nervous system reacts.

This reaction is rarely about the work itself. Most engineers do not hate solving problems. Most tech leads do not wake up thinking, “I despise building systems.” The discomfort is more subtle. It lives in ambiguity, in unfinished emotional threads, in the quiet backlog of unresolved internal friction.

Throughout the week, you override small signals. A stakeholder shifts scope again, and you feel irritation. A meeting leaves you uncertain about expectations. You postpone a difficult conversation with a colleague. You sense that something in the architecture is fragile, but decide to handle it later. Each of these moments is small enough to ignore.

… so you ignore them.

Professionalism often means suppression.
But suppression does not mean deletion.

Subscribe now

Emotional Debt – Very similar to technical debt.

What accumulates is not just technical debt. It is emotional debt. And emotional debt, like its technical counterpart, compounds when left untreated.

By Sunday, the calendar is not what creates anxiety. It is the interpretation of the calendar. It is the story layered over reality.

Reality might look simple: a handful of tickets, a planning session, a demo at the end of the week. On paper, this is manageable.

But the story whispers something else.

This sprint will derail.

They expect more than I can deliver.

That conversation will go badly.

I am not fully prepared.

Psychologically, this is predictable. The human brain is biased toward threat detection. The amygdala reacts faster than the rational cortex. When uncertainty rises, the brain fills the gaps with worst-case simulations. Research in cognitive psychology shows that ambiguity increases stress responses even more than known negative outcomes. The body prefers a defined problem over an undefined one.

In tech, ambiguity is everywhere.

• Unclear scope.

• Unspoken expectations.

• Invisible power dynamics.

• Social evaluation.

The nervous system does not distinguish well between physical threat and social uncertainty. Both activate similar stress pathways. Cortisol rises. Heart rate shifts. Attention narrows. You experience this as tension, restlessness, or dread.

When variables feel undefined, control feels abstract. And when control feels abstract, anxiety rises.

This is where avoidance begins. You delay opening the document. You tell yourself you will prepare for the conversation tomorrow. You distract yourself with something easier. Avoidance offers short-term relief. Behavioral psychology calls this negative reinforcement: removing discomfort strengthens the avoidance behavior.

We can get out of this anxiety

“thoughts are not facts”

The loop becomes self-sustaining.

By the time Sunday evening arrives, you are not afraid of Monday.
You are carrying an unprocessed internal load.

The turning point is rarely dramatic. It does not require quitting your job or redesigning your entire life. It requires differentiation.

You must learn to separate what is happening from what your mind is projecting.

Reality is concrete. It can be written down. It has boundaries. It consists of tasks, meetings, constraints, and deadlines. The story is interpretive. It consists of imagined failure, assumed judgment, and predicted conflict.

Most of the emotional intensity surrounding Monday belongs to the second category.

When you externalize these projections, something shifts. The mind is no longer an unquestioned narrator. It becomes an object of observation. The moment a thought is written down, it becomes examinable. Once examinable, it becomes adjustable.

👉 This is not about positive thinking. It is about precision.

Cognitive behavioral therapy is built on this principle: thoughts are not facts. When you identify distortions, you reduce their emotional impact. Naming a fear activates different neural networks than being submerged in it. Language creates distance. Distance restores choice.

In tech culture, we are trained to debug systems, optimize processes, and refactor code. We rarely apply the same rigor to our internal operating system. We pride ourselves on rationality while ignoring the emotional layer that drives many of our decisions. Unprocessed emotions do not disappear simply because we are analytical. They settle into the background and manifest as tension, procrastination, or Sunday dread.

Regaining control does not mean eliminating uncertainty. It means increasing clarity where possible and consciously accepting what cannot be controlled. Some conversations need to be finished. Some expectations need to be clarified. Some commitments need to be renegotiated. Often, the dread of Monday signals that a boundary was not set or a decision was delayed.

Agency returns when you act on what you have been avoiding.

Sometimes this action is small: sending a message, scheduling a discussion, defining ownership explicitly. Sometimes it is internal: admitting that you are afraid of being judged, acknowledging that you care more about a project than you allow yourself to say.

Clarity reduces imagined threat. Completion reduces cognitive load. The deeper realization is this: if you consistently dread Monday, it is rarely because you chose the wrong profession. It is more often because you are allowing unexamined narratives to shape your emotional state.

The mind tells stories automatically. That is its function. But you are not required to believe every story it produces.

The Stoics understood this long before neuroscience. Epictetus wrote:

“Men are disturbed not by things, but by the views which they take of them.”

The event is neutral. The interpretation creates disturbance. This does not mean the event is irrelevant. It means your interpretation is decisive.

Enjoying Monday does not mean loving every task. It means entering the week without being dragged by unresolved internal tension. It means accepting where you currently stand, including your limitations, and choosing deliberate action instead of passive avoidance.

Acceptance is not resignation. It is the starting point for change.

When you accept the reality of your situation, you stop wasting energy arguing with it. That energy becomes available for movement. And movement, even small and imperfect, restores a sense of control.

The horror intro exaggerates a feeling many know too well. But Monday is not a monster.

It is a mirror.

It reflects what was left unfinished, unspoken, or unexamined during the week before.

If you want Monday to feel lighter, do not focus on motivation. Focus on clarity. Separate reality from story. Finish what you postponed. Name what you fear. Reduce ambiguity where you can. Consciously accept what you cannot change.

As Marcus Aurelius wrote, “You have power over your mind, not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength.”

Control is not the absence of uncertainty.

It is the presence of a deliberate response.

Your chance to change something about yourself: Reality vs Story

When Sunday pressure builds, don’t try to “motivate” yourself.

Differentiate.

Take a sheet of paper and draw two columns.

Column 1: Reality

Write down only what is objectively true about next week.

Meetings. Deadlines. Conversations. Deliverables. Constraints.

No interpretation. No adjectives. Just facts.

Example:

• Sprint planning at 10:00

• Architecture review on Wednesday

• Demo on Friday

• One unresolved 1:1 conversation

Column 2: Story

Now write what your mind is adding on top.

Fears. Predictions. Interpretations. Catastrophic thinking.

Example:

• “This sprint will fail.”

• “They expect more than I can deliver.”

• “I’m not fully prepared.”

• “That conversation will go badly.”

This separation is powerful.

Most anxiety lives in the second column.

Why Journaling Helps

When thoughts stay in your head, they feel like reality.

When you write them down, they become objects.

Psychologically, this creates cognitive distance. You shift from being inside the thought to observing it. That activates more rational processing and reduces emotional intensity. Research on cognitive-behavioral therapy shows that labeling and externalizing thoughts can weaken their grip.

Journaling does three things:

1. It exposes patterns.

   The same 2–3 fears repeat every week.

2. It reduces ambiguity.

   Vague dread becomes specific and manageable.

3. It restores agency.

   Once written, you can act: clarify, prepare, renegotiate, accept.

You don’t need pages.

Five minutes is enough.

Clarity reduces imagined threat.

And control begins the moment you separate reality from story.

📍Question of the day: What do you personally do to reduce the pressure that builds up before a new sprint or workweek begins?

— Adrian

The point is to stay balanced while life tries to pull you out of balance.

Hello Fellow, this was a tough week, and I want to talk about it because it is exactly the kind of week where stoicism stops being a nice idea and becomes a practice.

I use stoicism in a very practical way, not as a vibe, not as a quote collection, but as a tool to get through stress without losing myself. This week was not well planned on my side. Appointments moved, new obligations showed up out of nowhere, the schedule kept reshuffling, and at some point, you hit that familiar wall. You feel like you are running from one thing to the next, and still, nothing is truly finished.

That moment is the moment to intervene.

Not with “try harder”, not with self-pity, not with grinding another hour out of spite, but with clarity. The core Stoic move is simple: it is the three circles: what you control, what you can influence, and what is not in your control.

We all say we understand that, but a week like this exposes the truth: a lot of things we believe we can sway are actually in the no-control zone. And that is why you exhaust so quickly. You spend energy as if you were steering the weather.

This week, I was exhausted. I could feel the tension in my body, even though I remained mentally relatively calm. That is an important distinction. Calm does not mean you feel nothing. Calm means you are still in charge of your actions and reactions even under pressure. Anyone selling “never stressed, always confident” as the goal is, in my view, either not challenging themselves or not being honest about the cost.

Challenge must hurt, or nothing changes.

If this week had not hurt, I would not have learned anything. I could sit there and philosophize about inner peace all day long, but that is not the point. The point is to stay balanced while life tries to pull you out of balance.

Here is the practical test I use: can I look in the mirror and say I did everything that was in my power to sway the outcomes I committed to? Not everything that was expected, not everything that was imagined, but everything that was actually in my control to execute.

That is how you build a life without regret.

And this is where I will be a bit provocative, especially for the tech space: I hate deadlines! Not because I dislike commitment, but because “deadline commitment” is often a commitment to something you cannot control.

You can control your effort, your craft, your standards, your decisions, your communication, your prioritization, your ability to say no, your ability to rest and come back, and your ability to keep moving. You can sometimes influence speed with trade-offs. But you cannot control time the way people pretend you can.

A lot of deadlines are fictional milestones wearing serious clothes.

Yes, there are real deadlines in life. If you need to save a life, that is a deadline. But in software, in product, in leadership work, a large chunk of “deadlines” are negotiated fantasies – at best.

When you commit to them like they are physics, you are basically signing up for loss of control, and loss of control is one of the fastest roads to burnout.

So here is the discipline reframe I live by now: commit to getting it done, not to getting it done at a specific date.

That does not mean being vague. That does not mean being lazy. That means being honest about what kind of promise you are making and communicating it clearly.

This is the sentence I use when pressure rises:

“I will get it done. I can’t promise a date, but I will do everything in my power to get it done.”

It sounds simple, but it changes everything. It puts you back into the control circle. It forces a different kind of planning, planning around reality, not around theater. It also forces stakeholders to stop outsourcing their anxiety into your calendar.

And I want to address a common confusion: discipline is not “I must”.

If you think you are disciplined because you push through when someone else tells you to, that is not discipline. That is obedience to an external agenda.

Discipline is “I will”; it is self-led. It is the internal commitment to fulfill what you decided to stand for, even when it is uncomfortable, even when it is uphill, even when the week is ugly.

That is why I went out every day this week.

When I know a day is going to be heavy, I need to move. I am writing this while I am outside, doing my “jogging ruck”, running with a weight. Yes, I know the discussions: “don’t jog with weights, do rucking.” I understand. I still do it because it is one of the ways I test my edge; it is painful, it builds my body, and it teaches me something simple: I can be under load and still move forward – Voluntary discomfort 💪

Stoics treat voluntary discomfort as training: you choose small, controlled hardship (cold, hunger, simplicity) to rehearse resilience and reduce fear of loss, so adversity can’t easily shake your judgment. It’s not self-punishment; it’s a premeditated practice that strengthens self-control and proves to you that you can function calmly, with less – and it works very well; you should try.

That is the whole metaphor.

Not bragging outwardly, but the quiet certainty that when things hit hard, you will not abandon yourself

Several years ago, a week like this would have crushed me. I would have retreated, numbed myself, ordered junk, escaped into easy dopamine. Today, the week ends, and I am still standing. Not because I am special, but because I trained the practice: reflect daily, intervene early, control what I can, let go of what I cannot, and keep commitments without turning timing into a weapon.

That is what confidence actually is. Not bragging outwardly, but the quiet certainty that when things hit hard, you will not abandon yourself. I write that down in my mirror book, in the brag section, not to impress anyone, but to remember who I am when the next week tries to test me again.

So here is my Monday reflection, distilled:

Commit to outcomes. Hold your standards. Tell the truth about time. Use the three circles before you burn energy in the no-control zone. Push through when it is right, rest when it is wise, and never confuse external pressure with discipline.

One question for you: where in your week are you committing to timing, when you should be committing to outcome?

—Adrian

You may know this moment. You feel you could be more; you see yourself sometimes in this future vision. It feels real, but somehow every time you push towards it, you feel fear and doubt. A unpassable, invisible barrier. A voice is telling you to just keep scrolling through the social feed.

And you listen; you obey.

It was your idea to keep scrolling; you are in control, right? This potential is hoaxes anyway, isn’t it?

… still stuck, right? 😔

And you forget again who you could be. Then, after many of these cycles, you start following people on socials who are talking about how to get moving and overcome your own Resistance. “Just do this hack”, “write me a DM, and I will send you XYZ”.

Promises that fit perfectly into your “stuckness”. Fix a little bit and then… what? Keep scrolling socials? Or actually changing something?

If your goal is to become a self-disciplined, high-performing stoic practitioner, do you think listening to Ryan Holiday will make you that? Well, that would be like reading a sports magazine to become a sports person. Good stuff, and I listen to him often; Ryan is really great, but he isn’t you, you are not him; you need to go your own path.

To fully understand what he writes about, or what Marcus Aurelius wrote in this book, Meditations, you need to practise for a long time, fail, reflect, intervene, and adapt.

What brought people to push so far without losing their discipline?

How to keep a calm mind while being a CEO, CTO, Team Lead, or Entrepreneur?

How to choose to stay loyal to yourself when no one is looking, when no one really cares about you. How can YOU still care about YOURSELF then? What was their secret?

🍀 You should not go down this path alone, but it all starts with you alone.

Subscribe now

The Practice Path (Before Ideas)

Which book should I read?
Which course should I take?
Which coach has the right hack?

If you want to get something done in your life and actually change, understand this first: you don’t need a coach to start. You don’t need a hack. You don’t need another book or course.

👉 What you need is to stop breaking promises to yourself.

There is only one way to become a disciplined person: to start acting, deliberately, before you feel ready. Everything else is just Resistance wearing a productive costume.

Let’s get practical on how you can implement a Stoic self-leadership practice.

1) Journaling: Establish Your Baseline

The daily practise with just yourself

Journaling is not self-expression.

It’s not therapy.
It’s not creativity.
It’s a measurement.

🌅 Every morning, write down what you commit to today. Not what you wish you would do. What you are actually willing to stand behind.

🌇 Every evening, compare your intentions with your behavior.

Where did you act deliberately?
Where did you react?
Where did you avoid?
Where did you tell yourself a small, convenient lie to stay comfortable?

… every day!

For the first month, this is the only thing you need to read; no books, just about yourself, your promises, and the results. Are you even honest with yourself?

Who are you? Who do you want to be?

Your journal becomes your primary text. Not because it’s profound, but because it’s honest. It shows you your current baseline, not the version of yourself you’d like to be.

If you don’t know your baseline, every philosophy turns into role-play.

2) Resistance, Discipline, Starting Anyway

Start to develop your intentional Identity.

Once you journal honestly, a pattern appears fast.

You don’t fail because you lack insight.

You fail because something pushes back the moment things matter.

That pushback has many names. Call it fear, comfort, distraction, or self-sabotage. The name doesn’t matter. The mechanism does.

It shows up as:

• “I’ll start tomorrow.”

• “I need a better plan.”

• “I should read a bit more first.”

• “Now isn’t the right moment.”

Discipline starts when you stop negotiating with that voice.

This is the real turning point. You stop acting from mood and start acting from identity. You do the thing because you decided to be someone who does it, not because you feel inspired today.

That’s the moment people often describe as a “second life” or a rebirth. Not mystical. Just practical. You stop waiting for internal alignment and create it through action.

You move from intention to execution.

And this is also the point at which seeking help starts to make sense.

Not because you can’t start alone, but you should start alone. But because once Resistance is visible, you’ll notice another problem: you can’t reliably intervene on yourself every time. Not because you’re weak, but because humans are excellent at rationalizing. We’re built to make our own excuses sound reasonable.

This is where a buddy, mentor, or just reflection partner becomes powerful.

Someone who doesn’t give you a “hack” but gives you a mirror.
Someone who can ask, calmly and directly:

“Is that true, or is that Resistance?”

“Are you choosing this, or escaping?”

“What promise did you make this morning?”

We are not always strong – we need external honesty then

Sometimes you need an intervention you won’t do on your own, because you’re too close to your own story. You’ll try to get away with thoughts and actions you wouldn’t accept from anyone else, and you’ll call it being realistic.

A good reflection partner doesn’t create dependency. They strengthen your honesty. They help you practice the move that matters most: catching the moment you start negotiating, and returning to deliberate action.

3) A Simple Operating Rule

The core principle of stoicism

At the core of this practice is one rule you can apply every day:

What is yours to act on, and what is not?

In practical terms:

What is yours:

• your judgment

• your impulses

• your attention

• your actions and refusals

What is not:

• outcomes

• other people

• recognition

• timing

• how things turn out

This is not philosophy. It’s a filter.

Every time you feel stuck, distracted, or overwhelmed, ask:

“Am I trying to control something external, or am I avoiding acting where I actually have agency?”

Discipline grows when you consistently redirect energy back to what is yours.

4) Sustain the Practice (Not Another Reset)

Most people don’t fail because they lack willpower.

They fail because they design lives that require constant willpower.

Self-discipline is not about intensity. It’s about sustainability.

That means paying attention to cycles:

work, training, recovery, recreation, sleep.

If you’re serious, you eventually have to act here. Fix your sleep. Respect recovery. Stop treating exhaustion as a virtue. Build rhythms you can repeat for years, not weeks.

This isn’t optimization.

It’s maintenance.

Here is an optimized version in your tone: clearer, tighter, with boundaries made explicit, without softening the message or turning it salesy. Content is the same, but the expectations are cleaner and safer.

Reflection, Mentoring, and Staying Intrinsic

You don’t have to do this alone forever.

But the order matters.

Start with yourself. Always.

If you need someone to push you to begin, you’re already creating dependency. That’s not discipline; that’s outsourcing responsibility.

Once you’ve started, a reflection partner can help. Not advice. Not motivation. Just mirroring. Someone who listens and occasionally says, calmly and without drama:

“That sounds like avoidance.”

That alone already sharpens honesty.

About Mentoring

Mentoring comes later.

Real mentoring is not comfort. It’s an intervention.

A mentor interrupts your thinking when you start justifying, procrastinating, or inflating things. Not to control you, but to train a skill you don’t yet apply reliably yourself: honest self-intervention.

The goal is never dependency.

The goal is that you learn to do this on your own.

Coaching is optimization. Optional. Expensive. Late.

Apply Pareto here. If you do the basics seriously, you’re already most of the way there. The last layer costs disproportionate energy and only makes sense once the foundation is stable.

And that foundation is not theoretical.

It’s real work, real challenge, real change.

When to Look for a Mentor

If you don’t yet know who you are or what you need, mentoring easily turns into something closer to therapy. In that phase, talking to someone who has been there can help with orientation, especially if you want to change but genuinely can’t find a way in on your own.

But that’s not the core of mentoring.

If you'd asked me for mentoring at that stage, I’d have sat down with you two or three times. I’d listen. I’d push where necessary. I’d intervene where your thinking goes off track. That’s it.

Whether anything changes after that is entirely in your hands.

Will you apply what you’ve seen?

Or will you let the ego take over again and explain why now is different?

Real mentoring starts later. It starts when you’re already in the cycle.

When daily self-reflection isn’t enough anymore. When you want to go from controlling yourself to influencing outcomes, in your work, your team, your career.

That’s when things get tested in the real world.

Does your self-discipline hold under pressure?

Does your philosophy still work when it costs you something, or even everything?

👉 I am changing for the better while making progress in the real world.

That’s the standard.

Modern Escape and the Serenity Test

Here’s the uncomfortable part.

If your drug is Netflix, YouTube Shorts, excessive gaming, partying, or endless scrolling, you’re not fundamentally different from an alcoholic in the mechanism that matters.

Same pattern:

compulsion over choice,

escape over confrontation,

short-term relief over long-term agency.

The substance changed.

The dynamic didn’t.

The useful question is not “Is this bad?”

It’s “Is this chosen, or is it compulsive?”

Wisdom is noticing the exact moment judgment slips and impulse takes over, and intervening there. Not tomorrow. Not after one more video.

That intervention is the practice.

The Point

This is a quiet hero’s journey.

You start unconscious and reactive.

You notice the pattern.

You stop negotiating.

You act deliberately.

You learn to intervene in real time.

At some point, something changes.

You still feel resistance, but it no longer runs the show. You stop fighting the world and start shaping yourself.

Not with hacks.

Not with shortcuts.

Just with deliberate, repeatable practice.

— Adrian

I have been in tech leadership long enough to recognize the same failure pattern in a hundred different outfits. You schedule a meeting, you show up with a list of “important points”, you go through the numbers, the roadmap, the risks; everyone nods, no one interrupts, you leave with a strange feeling of progress. Then nothing moves.

A week later, you hear the sentence that should make every leader flinch:

“We discussed this.” – You did not.

You delivered a monologue. If there is no feedback loop, it is not communication; it is drilling.

Stoic Tech Leadership starts here, not in slogans, but in intervention; in the moment where you notice, “I am broadcasting,” and you choose instead to create shared meaning. Communication is not message delivery; it is meaning made common. Leadership is not a role; it is motion. No motion, no leadership.

1. The Stoic definition that matters in practice

When I am not sure about a concept, I go back to the root. Communication, from the Latin communicare, means “to make common”, “to share”. That is not poetic; it is mechanical. A message is not communication. Communication is the loop: I send something, you react, I adjust, we arrive at something we both understand and can act on.

The stoic angle is simple and demanding. My responsibility ends at clarity and stance; it does not include managing your emotional reaction. At the same time, it includes respecting your dignity and creating a space where you can respond without fear. So the stoic leader does two things at once: speaks with calm clarity, and builds the feedback loop on purpose. This is not softness; it is practised precision.

Stream about Leadership Communication with Daniele Ponzo.

2. Why monologue leadership fails in tech

If your leadership communication is a monologue, you are not creating signals; you are adding noise.

Tech makes drilling look productive. We love status updates, dashboards, and the idea that if we expose enough information, alignment will magically appear. It does not. I have seen it in product meetings with business stakeholders where developers drift away; not because they do not care, but because they cannot locate themselves in the conversation.

You can watch it happen: someone starts thinking about five open tickets, someone starts doing “just one quick thing” in the background, someone turns into a talking-head silhouette with the camera off, and suddenly you are speaking into a vacuum. Not because they are lazy, but because you did not give them a role. Humans do not move without meaning.

In uncertain times, it becomes worse. Fear increases noise. The more insecure the market, the more people scan for signals; when they cannot find any, they substitute interpretation, rumors, and personal anxiety. If your leadership communication is a monologue, you are not creating signals; you are adding noise.

“And be silent for the most part, or else make only the most necessary remarks, and express these in few words.” Epictetus, the Manual 33 1

3. Dialogue is not a vibe; it is a system

The simplest way to think about dialogue is this: your job is not to deliver information; your job is to build a shared map. A shared map produces motion; a monologue produces, at best, compliance.

Here is the loop I use when I want motion, not nodding: frame the situation in one minute; invite a response with a real question; listen without defending; reflect what you heard in their words; commit to a decision, an owner, and a next checkpoint; check understanding.

If you skip the invite, you are drilling. If you skip the reflection, you are collecting opinions rather than building shared meaning. If you skip the commit, you created a nice conversation that goes nowhere.

• CLARIFY: “Here’s the map and the stakes.”

• ASK: “What am I missing?”

• LISTEN: “Say it back in your words; I’ll mirror it.”

• MOVE: “Decision, owner, next check.”

Subscribe now

4. The leader’s three tools for dialogue

Dialogue does not mean you talk less; it means you talk differently.

Tool 1: Story, make the journey visible

In Germany, calling something a “story” can sound like you made it up. In reality, a story is a structure; it is the shortest path from information to meaning. A leader is always describing a journey, even in the most boring meeting, especially in a boring meeting.

The practical pattern I use is simple: where are we right now, what is the tension, what is at stake, what choice is in front of us, what will we do next, and what will that change.

I do this even when the topic is “numbers”, because numbers without stakes are sleep medicine. So instead of “Here are the numbers”, I open with something like this: “We are on a journey to ship faster without breaking trust; the tension is that our current release process is creating fear; the stake is customer confidence and our own momentum; the choice is whether we invest in continuous delivery practices now or keep paying the rework tax; today we decide what we stop doing so we can start doing what matters.”

Now developers and business people can locate themselves; now there is a story; now there is motion.

Always remember to make the people around the protagonists of the story.

Tool 2: Voice, authority without aggression

Most leaders think authority comes from speed, volume, or cleverness. It does not. Authority comes from calm clarity; you can feel it in the room when someone speaks, and you stop multitasking. That is not charisma; it is pacing, intonation, and strategic pauses. A practical intervention I teach myself is this: every time I think, “I must say this perfectly,” I slow down and pause.

A pause is not empty space; a pause is an invitation. Use three kinds of pauses: before the point, to collect attention; after the point, to give weight; after the question, to create space for someone else to step in. If you never pause, you are not communicating; you are performing.

Tool 3: Empathy, precision targeting

Empathy is not about agreeing; it is about understanding what the other person can receive. It is the leader’s targeting system. Before I speak, I try to answer one question: “What are they protecting right now?”

A developer might be protecting focus; a product person might be protecting credibility; a founder might be protecting runway. If I ignore that, my message lands like a bullet; it hits, but it does not connect. If I respect it, I can make the same message land as an invitation.

If you take a moment during a regular workday with meetings and discussion you can see this situation daily. We need to become better at this. In fact, this is a key ingredient in developing the work culture we all want.

5. The meeting rewrite: from numbers to movement

Let me make this concrete. Here is the meeting format that creates drilling: open call; “quick update”; twenty minutes of metrics; ten minutes of opinions; no decision; everyone leaves with vague anxiety. Now here is the dialogue version, and it fits into ten minutes.

The Stoic Dialogue Meeting Template

1. Context (20 seconds): why we’re here, why now.

2. Stakes (20 seconds): What happens if we do nothing?

3. Map (30 seconds): two options, tradeoffs included.

4. Invite (30 seconds): one real question, for example: “Where will this fail?” “What am I not seeing?” “What cost are we ignoring?”

5. Commit (30 seconds): decision, owner, next checkpoint.

Then stop. Numbers can be an appendix; the meeting is for meaning and motion.

6. One-on-ones: the smallest unit of dialogue leadership

A stoic intervention is to treat the one-on-one as a coaching session, not as administrative work.

One-on-ones are where leaders either build trust or build resignation. Most one-on-ones fail because they are treated as a ritual: same questions, same shallow answers, no movement. A stoic intervention is to treat the one-on-one as a coaching session, not as administrative work.

Here is my practical 20-minute structure: 5 minutes: what matters this week, in your words; 10 minutes: one problem, one decision, one next step; 5 minutes: development, skill, scope, ownership. And the questions that create motion:

“What are you avoiding?”

“What would good look like in two weeks?”

“Where do you need my protection, where do you need my push?”

“What is the smallest commitment you can make today?”

If you talk 90 percent of the time, it is not a one-on-one; it is a lecture.

👉 Mentoring advice for leaders: “Two weeks” is actually way too long, but I understand that most of you don’t have the structure right now to talk to everyone every day. But remember, the best teams work directly together. So in a team, these kinds of conversations must happen daily and shouldn’t be One-on-ones per se.

7. The discipline: train it like a craft

People ask for the perfect ratio of talking and listening. I do not believe in a golden number; I believe in a golden rule: if there is no exchange, there is no communication. Here is the practical habit that changes everything.

Record yourself, not to become an influencer, but to become observable to yourself. Record a 60-second clip answering one prompt: “What is the journey we are on right now?” Then watch it back. Do you have a clear frame? Do you have stakes? Do you invite feedback; do you end with a commitment?

Add the timer. Give yourself 90 seconds, then 60. You will feel pressure; that is the point. Under pressure, you speak as you were trained.

Add reality. Exchange one recording with one person; give each other feedback. This trains the feedback loop, not just your monologue.

8. The failure modes I still catch in myself

I am not writing this from a pedestal; I still catch myself drilling. The common failure modes are predictable, and so are the interventions. If you over-talk, ask a question every 60–90 seconds. If you do fake dialogue, reflect what you heard before adding your view. If you over-index on empathy and lose stance, state the decision and the why, then invite critique. If cameras are off and you lose signal, make check-ins explicit, summarize, and ask for confirmation.

 👉 Make it visible to yourself, so you can become aware of your mistakes and shortcomings. Only by doing that do you get the chance to accept who and how you are. Then dare to make a change. It’s the same practise like champions train for their competitions.

9. The stoic standard

it is being calm so you can be precise.

Stoic Tech Leadership is not being calm for aesthetics; it is being calm so you can be precise. Your job is to create shared meaning that enables motion.

That requires story, voice, empathy, and discipline.

Stop drilling; start leading. Here is the simplest test.

After you speak, can the other person respond in a way that changes the shared map? If yes, you communicated. If not, you delivered a monologue.

—Adrian

If you find yourself stuck in dilemmas on a regular basis, you are rarely “thinking deeply.” You usually use better vocabulary when you procrastinate. You postpone the decision into the future because a part of you is afraid that choosing a direction means losing all other directions, and with it, losing safety, approval, or control.

In leadership, that pattern is expensive. Not because every decision is critical, but because indecision becomes culture. Your team watches how you move, then copies your pace. If you freeze, they learn freezing is acceptable. If you move, they learn that movement is normal.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: a dilemma is not a sign of sophistication. A dilemma is a stuck moment. It’s the moment where your current patterns don’t give you a clear answer, so you hesitate, you overanalyze, you seek more input than you need, you try to eliminate uncertainty that cannot be eliminated.

Stoicism has a clean lens for this. Control is small, outcomes are not. What you control is your judgment in the moment, your choice, your action, your reaction, and your willingness to learn. The rest is weather.

So the question is not, “How do I avoid wrong decisions?” The question is, “How do I stop treating normal decisions like irreversible life events?”

Why dilemmas are dangerous for leaders

A leader’s job is not to be right all the time. A leader’s job is to keep the system moving, to create clarity, to shorten feedback loops, to prevent paralysis from spreading.

When you get stuck, you also teach your nervous system a lesson: “This is scary.” The next time, it becomes scarier. That’s how a single hesitation becomes a habit.

You can see this everywhere in tech. Planning meetings that turn into debate marathons, not because the stakes are high, but because nobody wants to be the person who commits. Content creation is the same game in different clothes. You don’t post because you’re “optimizing timing,” you’re avoiding the discomfort of being seen. The dilemma is a disguise.

And the longer you sit in it, the more choices you imagine, the more drawbacks you discover, the harder it becomes to pick one. That’s the fallacy of choice at work; optionality feels safe until it becomes a cage.

My stance: avoid the dilemma state

My core idea is simple: a leader should avoid being stuck in a dilemma. Ideally, you enter the situation, you decide, you move on.

Not recklessly, not impulsively, not “gut feeling because I’m special,” but decisively within sensible guardrails.

Here are the guardrails I use:

1. If the decision does not severely harm you or others,

2. if it does not risk an unrecoverable financial hit,

3. if it does not create irreversible damage to trust, reputation, or safety,

   Then it’s a decision you can make fast.

Make it, then learn.

This is where Stoicism becomes practical. Your control is the choice and your conduct, not the outcome. You cannot fully control the consequences; you cannot even meaningfully influence it. What you can control is how quickly you observe what happened, how honestly you reflect, and how cleanly you adjust the next time.

Decision, action, consequence, reflection, adaptation. That cycle never ends, and that’s good news, because it means you don’t need perfection; you need repetition.

Over time, repetition becomes pattern recognition. You build a mental library. “Ah, this type of call again.” What looked like a dilemma last year becomes obvious this year, not because you became magically smarter, but because you earned the pattern through decisions, including failures.

A Tony Robbins-flavored angle: decisions create identity

Tony Robbins has a very direct approach to this topic. His whole energy is built around one principle: your life changes when your standards change, and your standards show up in your decisions. He pushes people away from “let me think about it” and toward “decide who you are going to be.”

That’s why his style often sounds like, “Stop negotiating with yourself.” Not because nuance is bad, but because endless negotiation is a coping mechanism.

A simple Robbins-aligned example that fits leadership: imagine you’re debating whether to address a recurring delivery problem with a senior engineer who keeps missing expectations. You can call it a dilemma and spend three weeks collecting more “context,” or you can decide: “I’m the kind of leader who protects the team’s reality.” Then you schedule the conversation, you speak clearly, you keep it respectful, and you move.

The fear is rarely the conversation. The fear is the identity shift, from colleague-with-responsibility to leader-with-standards.

Robbins would say: you don’t wait for confidence, you build confidence by acting in alignment. Stoicism would say: do what is yours to do, then accept what follows. Same direction, different language.

Tech leadership example: sprint planning isn’t a life decision

Let’s ground this in a very boring, very real tech example: sprint planning.

(btw I don’t like sprints at all as a method; but I know many of you have those implemented 😀)

Even if you do it weekly, the decisions you make during sprint planning are usually not severe. It’s a one-week bet. On a long enough timeline, that first week disappears, and you adjust.

That’s the key. Many leadership decisions are reversible, or at least correctable. The earlier you get feedback, the earlier you can course-correct, and the less emotional weight the decision should carry.

If you treat a one-week planning call like a permanent tattoo, you’ll get stuck. If you treat it like an experiment with feedback, you’ll move.

The stoic move: focus on what you control, then move

Here’s the operating system I want you to practice:

• Control your judgment, then choose.

• Act, don’t ruminate.

• Observe consequences without drama.

• Accept the emotional wave (regret, irritation, doubt), without obeying it.

• Reflect, extract the lesson, update your pattern.

• Repeat.

This is what experienced CEOs and CTOs are doing when it looks like “easy decisions.” They aren’t lucky. They’re trained. Their experience is not passive observation; it’s active decision-making plus honest review over the years.

And because leadership is always watched, your decision speed becomes your team’s. Your calm becomes their calm. Your courage becomes their permission.

Takeaway

Avoid the dilemma state. If it’s not a severe, irreversible decision, decide and move.

If you want a rule of thumb, you can actually use tomorrow:

• If it’s reversible, decide fast.

• If it’s irreversible, slow down, get counsel, and still decide.

• If you keep calling it a dilemma, ask yourself what you’re protecting: comfort, identity, approval, or control.

• Your job is not to eliminate uncertainty; your job is to move the system forward under uncertainty.

See you next time. Goodbye everyone.

—Adrian

The implementation lacks, because it is mostly based on custom GPTs, which isn’t a solution in this case. It is still a pioneering phase, but what we have learned in the software engineering space is transferable to coaching and teaching.

Today, I want you to understand what I learned, why I am keen to integrate AI into my coaching & mentoring business, and why it became part of the Q1 roadmap for pagebar.site.

“AI coaching is on the radar far more than I expected”

In the last few weeks, something has been repeated in conversations with coaches and mentors: AI coaching is on the radar far more than I expected. Not as a gimmick, not as “another tool”, but as a serious question of leverage, quality, pipeline, and trust. That matters because coaching is not a content format; it is a process of change, and change is never just intellectual. It is emotional, behavioral, social, and often painfully practical.

2025 was the dawn phase. Curiosity, doubt, experimentation, quick wins, quick disappointments – and a lot of doubt. This year feels different. AI is no longer “new”; it is simply present, like email, like Slack, like the smartphone. AI is quietly becoming infrastructure. The question is not whether AI will be used in coaching. The question is what kind of coaching it will produce.

Here is my critical thesis, with a clear pro-AI bias in coaching: AI will not replace good coaches; it will amplify the gap between coaches with substance and those with only output.

And the most important part is not the model. It is the design.

Subscribe now

AI is already the number one coach in usage, not in quality

I’m careful with that sentence, because it can be misunderstood. I do not mean AI is the best coach. I mean, it is already the most used reflection partner. People are using it to interpret a letter from the tax office, to sanity-check a symptom before seeing a doctor, to work through a conflict before sending a message, to understand a concept they did not understand five minutes ago. The moment the question appears, the answer is accessible. That changes behavior.

Coaching, mentoring, and teaching, these are all forms of learning. Learning is not a weekly meeting; it is a daily loop. So if AI is already in everyone’s pocket, always available, always responding, it becomes part of the learning environment, whether we like it or not. The relevant question becomes: do we integrate it into the coaching process in a way that improves quality, or do we ignore it and let it happen in the shadows, without guardrails, alignment, or context?

Experience is the input, judgment is the difference

An AI coach is only as good as the coach behind it, minus the judgment call. That sentence kills two fantasies at once: the fantasy that AI can magically create depth, and the fantasy that a “coach brand” equals a coaching system.

If there is no track record, no years of sessions, no proven structure, then the AI has nothing to compress into a real point of view. It will sound like polished generic advice, which is exactly what a standard model already produces. You can add tone, you can add vocabulary, you can add a few principles, but you cannot fake lived patterns.

Where AI becomes interesting is when the coach has years of consistent reps, recurring cases, refined frameworks, and a language shaped by real humans in real moments. Then AI becomes a compression layer, not a creativity layer; it can return the coach’s patterns back to the client at the moment the client needs them, not one week later.

Judgment is the non-automatable core

Pattern recognition can be automated; judgment cannot. AI can help someone map options, surface trade-offs, reduce blind spots, and clarify the decision space. But there are moments where responsibility is the work, where you need a human who can challenge you, hold you accountable, and carry the moral weight with you. If you are making a high-stakes decision, for example, a leadership decision that impacts livelihoods, do not outsource the decision to a chatbot. Use AI to fill information gaps, then take the judgment call to a human you respect.

Coaching is daily, sessions are weekly, and the gap is where momentum dies

If you see coaching as a holistic process, you know the real work happens between sessions. The coaching session is a checkpoint; the week is the battlefield. Discipline, Resistance, avoidance, shame, fear, negotiation with your own standards, that is daily weather.

Here is the recurring situation:

“It’s Tuesday evening. I finally have time to reflect. I’m stuck. I could message my coach, but I don’t want to disturb them. I keep it short, I’m not even sure how to phrase it, then I wait. When the answer comes, it’s on-the-go, and we both know it’s not the best version of the coaching.”

That pattern is not a character flaw; it is a structural gap. AI can bridge it, not by pretending to be the coach, but by holding the client inside the coach’s system when the coach is not present. This is where I see AI coaching as a scaling tool, and depending on positioning, even as its own product layer that feeds into higher-touch work. Not because it replaces the relationship, but because it protects momentum.

Reflection speed becomes a competitive advantage

People who can reflect and adjust in real time progress faster than those who wait for scheduled feedback. Coaching often fails, not because the session was bad, but because feedback arrives too late to shape the next action. AI shortens the loop between thought, insight, action, and correction. This is the part coaches should take seriously: if your client wants to do the work in the moment they have energy, Tuesday evening matters.

Knowledge does not “sit” in a PDF; it has to live

Many AI coaching experiments fail for a simple reason: they treat knowledge like a file upload. Dumping text into a model and hoping for the best is not a strategy; it is a lottery ticket.

If this becomes infrastructure, then the “coaching brain” has to be maintained like any serious system. It needs condensation, structure, revision, and drift control. It needs to turn transcripts into principles, principles into decision rules, and decision rules into language that still sounds like the coach, but stays precise under pressure.

This is why I believe coaching AI will move from “prompting” to “frameworks”. Prompting is brittle and personal; frameworks are stable and transferable. The coach should not be forced to become a prompt engineer. The platform should provide a framework for condensation that keeps the knowledge base usable, grounded, and consistent.

Guardrails have to be strict; confidence matters more than output

This is the part that decides whether AI coaching becomes trusted or becomes a reputational risk. Hallucinations, confident nonsense, and invented certainty are unacceptable in coaching because coaching often happens at the edge of someone’s identity, decision-making, and relationships.

The goal is not to deliver a response. The goal is to deliver the right response with the right confidence, or to refuse.

That means strict guardrails, clear escalation rules, and explicit confidence signaling. “I’m not sure” is not a failure; it is a feature. The system should be able to say: I can answer this confidently; I can give options, but I’m uncertain; I cannot answer this responsibly, bring it to a human.

This also unlocks something powerful: the AI becomes a feedback instrument for the coach. Not feedback in the fluffy sense, but operational feedback: which questions keep appearing, where the knowledge base has gaps, where users ask for something the system cannot answer without risk. That creates a review loop where the coach improves the coaching brain week by week, instead of shipping a static GPT and hoping it behaves.

AI needs to be coached, too

In software, we learned that tools do not save weak processes. A team that already ships reliably becomes faster with AI; a team that lacks discipline becomes louder. The same applies to coaching. AI amplifies substance, not credibility. It accelerates what is already there, good or bad.

If you want a practical analogy: TDD is not a programming language feature; it is a feedback framework. AI agents became powerful in software when they were wrapped in frameworks and workflows, not when they were just chatbots. Coaching AI is the same. Without a framework, you get vibes. With a framework, you get deliberate practice.

Personal note: disciplined people experience the gap more sharply

I work on myself daily, without exception. Quiet moments create openings, a thought appears, an insight is near, and I want to continue right now, not tomorrow. That is where session-based coaching hits a hard limit: waiting kills the loop.

This is why AI is so tempting, and why it can be so effective when used correctly. Not as a replacement for human coaching, but as a bridge that keeps the loop alive between sessions.

Privacy and governance are not “extras”; they are the product

A client needs a space to think out loud without being judged. That includes messy questions, awkward framing, and half-formed thoughts. Reflection works because it is private; a mirror book works because the page does not interrupt you. AI can bring that privacy into an interactive format, but only if it is designed as privacy-first rather than surveillance.

The coach should not receive raw messages by default. The coach should receive a partially anonymized, human-readable summary only when the client consents to share. The client stays safe; the coach still gains context; the next session starts deeper because the client has already worked within the coach’s system before entering the call.

Governance matters here. Without governance, AI becomes a parallel universe, a solo adventure with generic advice. With governance, it becomes part of the coaching relationship; boundaries, standards, and intent remain owned by the coach and chosen by the client.

A simple integration pattern that is already better than “use a custom GPT.”

If you want a concrete way to think about this, keep it simple:

First, private reflection: the client uses AI as a mirror to work through the messy version.

Second, structured summary: the system turns that into a short, human-readable summary, optionally anonymized.

Third, session alignment: the coach receives only what is needed to coach, and the next session starts with the real topic.

Fourth, feedback loop: the AI reports uncertainty and missing coverage back to the coach, so the coaching brain evolves.

This respects privacy, increases momentum, and makes coaching sessions more valuable.

So, will AI replace or enhance coaching

I don’t think AI can replace good coaching, because coaching is not just about knowledge transfer. It is timing, accountability, judgment, and relationship. But AI will enhance coaching in a way that changes expectations: clients will want support the moment they are ready to do the work, not only when the calendar allows it.

I’m pushing to build this capability into ᴘᴀɢᴇʙᴀʀ.site for a selfish reason: I want it for my own coaching and mentoring. I want the bridge. I want the privacy. I want the strict guardrails. I want the feedback loop. I want the client to maintain momentum on a random Tuesday evening, then bring the real topic into the next session with clarity rather than chaos.

One question I keep coming back to, and I’d genuinely like your take: what is the one boundary you would insist on, before you would ever let AI touch your coaching process?

—Adrian

“We save.”

“We don’t have much.”

“That’s for rich people.”

“I can’t afford a new car.”

“Real estate is impossible.”

Those aren’t money statements. They’re identity statements, and identity statements don’t just describe your life, they prescribe it. Repeat them long enough, and you don’t become “realistic”, you become trained, trained to shrink desire until it no longer demands action, trained to wait for permission that never arrives.

This is a publication on stoic leadership mentoring. Subscribe to learn, reflect, and challenge yourself. You can find paid mentoring sessions here to start practicing yourself today.

Subscribe now

Ambition becomes expensive

“I want this”

Ambition dies at a very specific moment, the moment it becomes costly. Because the moment you say, “I want this”, you accept the price: change, discomfort, risk, real effort. Change, because the current version of you produced your current results. Discomfort, because growth feels like friction, not like clarity. Risk, because building anything meaningful requires uncertainty. Real effort, because outcomes don’t respond to intention; they respond to repetition. Many people do not lack dreams; they avoid the price of their dreams while still wanting the reward. That’s not a character flaw. That’s a pattern.

Identity statements are quite self-sabotaging

A sentence like “We don’t have much” is rarely about the bank account. It teaches your nervous system that wanting more is unsafe. It teaches your mind that your situation is fixed. It teaches you to aim for preservation rather than creation. Once that identity is installed, you stop asking “How do I build?” and start asking “How do I avoid losing?” That shift is small, but it changes everything.

The side hustle problem nobody admits

A side hustle can be a transition, but often it’s a hiding place. It lets you keep the identity of a builder without accepting the responsibility of becoming one. The job gets your sharpest hours, the “business” gets the leftovers, your boss gets your discipline, and your dream gets your mood. And then people wonder why nothing compounds. Compounding doesn’t happen in leftovers.

The mirror test

Here is a quick test that cuts through the stories. Did you ever start building your future, then one job scare later, you dropped everything and sprinted into the next role, and it happened more than once? Then call it what it is: you’re choosing safety over ambition. Safety is not wrong, but safety is not neutral. It’s a trade. It costs you momentum, identity, and long-term leverage. It also teaches you a habit: when fear arrives, you abandon your own agenda.

First-world stability and “permission poverty.”

Here’s the paradox I can’t ignore. I’ve met people from poorer countries with fewer safety nets and more hunger. They didn’t treat limitation as identity; they climbed anyway. They didn’t wait for permission, they didn’t moralize ambition, they didn’t confuse desire with arrogance.

Meanwhile, first-world stability often creates permission poverty, the belief that you’re not allowed. Not allowed to want more, not allowed to say it out loud, not allowed to fail publicly on the way there, not allowed to pursue it without justifying it. So instead of hunger, you get caution. Instead of creation, you get preservation. Instead of ambition, you get self-protection.

Ambition is not a mood

Ambition isn’t loud. It isn’t arrogance. It isn’t a motivational phase. Ambition is a standard you enforce. Ambition is the willingness to state your desire clearly, then organize your life around the work required to earn it. That’s why “I want this” is a dangerous sentence; it forces a reordering. If you never say it, you never reorder.

Do you dare to have ambition? You should.

The Stoic conclusion: Control, Influence, No-control

“Some things are in our control and others not.” — Epictetus, Enchiridion 1

This is where Stoicism becomes useful, not as philosophy, but as a tool for ambition. It forces you to stop dumping your energy into the wrong bucket. Control is your standards, choices, effort, discipline, and how you protect time. Influence is your skills, runway, network, distribution, and the environment you build around yourself.

No control is over your birth, the economy, the market, or other people’s opinions. Obsess over no control, and you stay stuck, because you’ll always find a reason to wait. Ambition isn’t a feeling. It’s choosing the control zone this week, and proving it in your calendar.

PS: This post is inspired by fellow builders who keep trying to “transition” by staying half-in, half-out. If you keep dropping your agenda the moment fear shows up, that’s not transition, that’s training. Name it, then rebuild the standard.

—Adrian

—-

Looking for a change and feeling overwhelmed by everything?
Let’s talk and make you walk again: My mentoring programme.

Leaders don’t break in big moments. They break in small, repeated ones.

A decision arrives too late.
Your week gets hijacked.
You swallow it, push it down, and tell yourself you’ll reflect “when it’s calmer”.

It won’t get calmer by accident. So here are three topics I return to because they create signal, create standards, and keep your team out of the blast radius.

“You have power over your mind, not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength.” – A stoic principle

Subscribe now

1) Self-leadership is honesty, not motivation

You can’t lead your way out of reality by thinking harder. You lead your way out by changing behavior.

This part is personal.

I’ve been a CTO and entrepreneur for 18+ years, and I have never been unpaid for a single month. I never needed to apply for a job in the tech space, and I kept moving into leadership roles in a way that looked “natural” from the outside. It wasn’t magic; it was circumstances, attitude, and one obsession that never left me. I wanted to understand what’s going on around me on a profound level.

People sometimes smile when I dig into “boring” things. But they aren’t boring to me, because that’s where cause and effect hides. That’s where the Muse lives, and where Resistance tries to sneak in.

And the key that made this sustainable for me is simple: self-reflection.
Not vibes.
Not motivation.
A practice.

In tech lead mentoring, this is the moment where things get real. We can spend 45 minutes talking about the current situation, the company pressure, the messy stakeholders, the fear, and the frustration.

That talk matters; it’s a warm-up.
It shows me what you’re currently “made of.”

But then we have to cross the line into work. That’s where a lot of leads get uncomfortable, because the truth shows up: You can’t lead your way out of reality by thinking harder. You lead your way out by changing behavior.

That is why the Mirror-Book becomes part of basically every mentee’s life. Because without a daily mirror, you will keep repeating the same week and calling it a “phase.”

The Mirror-Book

A visible trail of who you have been becoming.

What I push is a physical practice. A small DIN A6 notebook, ideally with a cover, that you can carry. A low-tech pen. That’s it.

You want it with you because leadership doesn’t fail only at the desk. It fails in the car before a meeting. It fails in the five minutes after a call. It fails when you’re outside, and your mind is still spinning.

Over time, it becomes a series of books. A visible trail of who you have been becoming.

This is the point: you write in it daily. You can miss a day. You can be quick on a day that’s genuinely overloaded. But the point is discipline, in the older sense, disciplina, the daily practice of your craft.

💡 And your craft, as a leader, is yourself.

What the Mirror-Book really tests

It quietly answers one question:

Are you lying to yourself or not?

Because your brain will rewrite the story. Especially when you’re tired, stressed, or ashamed. So we create evidence.

And we create it in a way that does not turn into self-hate or denial. In mentoring, I see two failure modes:

1. People only write down what went wrong, then they train self-hate.

2. People only write down what went right, then they train denial.

So the Mirror-Book is built around signal + honesty.

“The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts.”
– Marcus Aurelius, in Meditations

The daily structure I teach

Keep it short. Don’t write novels. Short notes stick. I mean that, keep it short 😀

Morning (setup):

• Date

• Signals (1–3 only): the day’s core signals. Not to-dos. Signals force you to choose what matters.

• Fitness (mental + physical): one concrete commitment. When Resistance shows up later, you’re not deciding from scratch, you’re either keeping a commitment or breaking it.

• Brag (prepare 3 empty bullets): leave them blank, but create the space.

Evening (mirror):

Fill the three Brag bullets:

• Where did I follow my signals.

• Where did I show up as the leader I claim I want to be.

• What did I learn from a failure, and what do I understand now.

Bragging here is not arrogance. It’s radical honesty. Some days you’ll write real wins. Some days you’ll realize you have nothing to brag about. Both are feedback.

Left page (identity + free thoughts):

Write a short note:

• Who I want to be today

• How do you want to face Resistance?

• How do you want to respond when things go off-plan?

• What kind of leader are you committed to being in meetings, in Slack, in conflict?

Then use the rest as free space to dump what’s in your head, so you don’t carry it all day.

Next day: Re-read yesterday for 30 seconds. Are you happy with what you see. Did you live up to your commitments or drift? That tiny loop is how you build self-trust.

Rating (0–5): Give the previous day a simple score. Not for others. For pattern recognition over weeks.

Why does this become part of mentoring

Because mentoring isn’t therapy and it isn’t cheerleading. It’s a transformation through repetition.

• Signals force focus.

• Fitness primes you against Resistance.

• Brag turns your day into evidence.

• “Who I want to be today” anchors identity before the storm.

• The rating closes the loop.

This is quiet work. No one applauds you for filling a Mirror-Book. But over time, it decides whether people follow you because of your title or because of who you actually are.

2) Purpose building, not motivation; the 5-year compass

Tech leads over-identify with the current week. That’s normal and part of the external agenda we need to follow at least to some point. It’s also how your standards slowly die.

A stressful phase is often a task for that day. Not destiny. Not identity. Not proof that you are “this kind of person”.

If you stay stuck inside short-term chaos, you start negotiating your standards down. You tolerate more. You ship weaker decisions. You call it “being pragmatic”.

So I ask you the same question I ask mentees: Who are you becoming over the next five years?

What do you want your leadership to be known for?
What do you refuse to normalize?
What are you willing to risk to get there?

Because this is the hard part: Feedback is an activity. Intention is a result. If you want something to change, you need an intention that bites. Sometimes that means being willing to put comfort and even a friendly relationship on the table.

• Management is often what you’re paid for.

• Leadership is what you choose to carry, even when nobody asks you to.

“First say to yourself what you would be; then do what you have to do.”

Takeaway: Write your 5-year direction in one sentence, then choose one boundary this week that proves you mean it.

3) Leading in the storm; protecting the team from late chaos

“Be like the cliff against which the waves continually break; it stands firm and tames the fury of the water around it.”

Here’s the recurring reality in tech: decisions arrive too late, and execution is still expected to be flawless.

If you let that storm hit your team directly, you’ll get output for a while. Then you’ll lose people, or you’ll keep them and drain their standards. They learn the wrong lesson: quality is optional, commitment means overwork, and “alignment” is a word used to justify pressure.

The leadership move is to absorb. Not to hero it, not to be a martyr; to stand between chaos and your team.

That looks like this:

• Translate late change into clear constraints.

• Remove emotional noise.

• Stop top-down panic from becoming your team’s daily weather.

• Set a boundary so it doesn’t become the normal operating mode.

One practical rule I push hard in mentoring: Don’t be deadline-driven as a default. You can talk time and scope, but only inside a quality contract. If quality is not the highest priority, the deadline is not binding.

A simple self-check at the end of the day: Did I dump pressure downward today, or did I turn it into clarity?

Takeaway: The next time a late request hits, don’t forward the stress; translate it into constraints, and ask the one question that changes the plan.

Extra reflection: Team alignment is a mechanism, not a perk

Sometimes the strongest alignment move isn’t another meeting. It’s changing the environment.

Offsites, nature, walking, shared challenge; these are not perks. They are mechanisms. Humans calm down outside. Ego drops a notch. People talk differently. Mission lands better.

If you do it, set the mission early. Frame the week as a journey, not “we’re here to annoy you for five days”.

—Adrian

My recommendations for this week:

Wannabe Wisdom, Diaries of a Fake Guru

Procrastination Is a Signal: Here’s How to Read It

My husband was away. The dog had already been walked, fed, and pooed. I didn’t have any classes to teach. On the calendar: one morning call and a dance class at night. Ten glorious, uninterrupted hours. When does that ever happen…

Read more

8 months ago · 57 likes · 35 comments · Ashley Evans

: Really good article about procrastination. Must read imo.

Stoic Productivity Letter

The Art of Reading More

Dear Reader…

Read more

5 months ago · 316 likes · 13 comments · Stoic Productivity

: A great source of stoic reflections.

Engineering Leadership

Become a Great Engineering Leader in 2026

Intro I hope you are having a good start to the New Year, 2026, and I wish you much success throughout the rest of the year as well…

Read more

4 months ago · 55 likes · Gregor Ojstersek

: One of my favourite engineering leadership newsletters.

Hello fellows. Let’s talk about the three stages we’re in. Well, there’s a fourth stage too, procrastination, but I don’t want to talk about that today. Not here and not in the video :)

So, we’re talking about rest, recreation, and work. These are the three stages you’re supposed to be in if you want to progress, and if you want to create.

You close your laptop at 22:17. Slack is finally quiet; Pipeline is green. Yet your brain still feels like a tab spinning in the background. So you open Steam “just for one round”. Three hours later, you’re in bed, phone in hand, scrolling through patch notes you don’t even care about. You wake up groggy, slam espresso, and promise yourself you’ll be productive today. And the loop repeats.

In 1-on-1s, I hear the same story, just with different logos.

Leaders: “I’m always on, but never really on.”

Coaches: “I teach balance, yet my weekends are shallow Netflix trenches.”

Senior engineers: “My ticket board is still full; my energy bar is red.”

Different symptoms; same root. We treat recreation like rest, and rest like waste. We merged two separate gears into one sloppy compromise. The result is a life that looks efficient on a dashboard, but feels like walking through Jello.

Here’s the model that fixes it, and I’m going to keep it very simple: rest is maintenance, recreation is where your usable energy comes back, and work is where you create, which means work costs energy. If you don’t understand that sequence, you’ll spend years trying to force output from an empty system.

Rest is maintenance, not just “more energy”

Rest is the first stage, and most people misunderstand its purpose. Rest is not mainly about “getting energy back”, that’s the side effect. The primary objective is to maintain your body and mind, and that is very important to understand. If you don’t give it to your body regularly, you will basically die at some point, or at least you will get sick. That’s why we need sleep.

Your subconscious mind is sorting thoughts, progressing thoughts, and boiling them down into actual memories. Your body is detoxifying, healing, and fighting disease. That’s the core job of rest. Yes, you wake up with more physical energy, but that’s not the main point. The point is: the system gets repaired.

Recreation is where energy becomes available

“Recreation is the phase where you do something that gives you back energy by unblocking the energy you already have”

The actual energy you can use comes from recreation. Recreation is the phase where you do something that gives you back energy by unblocking the energy you already have. You have energy as a human being, even though people often don’t think that way, but it’s true. Most people don’t lack energy; they lack access to it.

Recreation is what I’m doing right now when I’m outside in a lovely scenery, like Center Parcs Bostalsee, walking around, letting my mind breathe.

For me, it’s archery. It can be fitness. It can be a walk or a run. It can be writing.

It can even be computer games if you do it for recreation and not as a numbing. These things unblock you, they give you new energy, they bring you back into creativity.

You are exposed to external agendas; we will come to that point in detail, but this agenda pressures you with deadlines and the intentions of others for you. It’s NOT your choice, it’s what you are supposed to do. That drains energy, that blocks you in so many ways. Expectations, fears, and manipulation, just to name a few.

You should do recreation, with limits, of course, but you should do it. The key is to bake it into your routine. Several hours a day is not crazy; it’s normal if you want to create consistently.

💡Make sure fitness, in what way, becomes a part of this recreation phase. Find something that actually brings you joy. That is of utter importance. It must become part of your baseline; otherwise, your inner strength and health will decrease in a way that you cannot really keep up what is to come in 3) Work …

Work is creation, and creation costs energy, but it’s absolutely necessary.

“That’s where you do the actual stuff you’re supposed to do as a human being”

What have you thought is the meaning of life? 😀

Then there’s work. That’s where you actually create things. That’s where you do the actual stuff you’re supposed to do as a human being.

We are creators.

We create life, we create things, we create systems, we create art, we create outcomes, and we should do that.

Because if we’re not in progress, we won’t be happy, and that is a foundational problem of our life. Happiness doesn’t come from recreation! It’s not coming from resting or procrastinating. It is only coming from real-life progress. From changing who you are to making your potential reality.

That’s something I’ve learned for myself, and I’ve seen it in mentoring again and again.

Yes, working is hard! It consumes what you've got and will NEVER stop doing that 😀

Creating costs energy, which is why you need rest and recreation. You need to maintain the system, unblock the energy, and then you can actually use it. If you can’t, you get the usual symptoms: no concentration, blank page, and as soon as the external pressure drops, your motivation drops with it.

That’s not a character flaw; that’s an empty battery.

Pace control, and why “burnout” is most often exhaustion

People often think the problem is work. It can be, especially in externally agenda-heavy companies, but often it’s not. It’s the pace and the missing downshifts. Work on that pace before you make other decisions.

💡Stoic mindset: Always stay in your circle of control. Changing companies is an action you can do, but not control. You don’t know what will come. Changing companies must be done if the current situation hurts you, but you really need to do what you can control before that decision – that is, controlling your pace and limits. Or, in simpler words, develop your discipline.

Here’s the simple rule:

Cruise most days.

Sprint rarely.

Full-stop on purpose.

Cruise means ~70% throttle, repeatable forever. This is where discipline lives and where real consistency is built. And this is why you need to set your own baseline, not to hit record highs daily. Keep it lower, but doable DAILY. Even if you are sick or have other reasons not to run your daily marathon 😀

Sprint means ~95% throttle, short and intentional. Think 48–72 hours: incidents, launches, deadlines. You plan the edges, extra rest before, extra recreation after. Don’t skip that. Research why you have had that need to sprint and retake control. Reflect and adapt so that you need fewer sprints in the future. Something you can at least influence.

Full-stop means zero throttle, zero guilt. Proper sleep. Airplane-mode walks. Family time. Your time. Non-negotiable.

Most burnout I see is not burnout. It’s exhaustion. Exhaustion is a signal. It means you need to take care of rest levels and recreation levels.

Your agenda vs the external agenda

There is another layer people don’t talk about enough: your agenda. When you have only an external agenda, corporate pressure, a boss, and constant expectations, you lose energy faster because, as soon as you create for someone else, you expend energy.

That’s normal. Maslow’s pyramid is real; you need to earn a living, so you will always have some external agenda. But you need balance. You need enough of your own agenda to feel free and meaningful; otherwise, everything feels shallow.

So yes, rest. Yes, recreation. And if you keep exhausting yourself, you also need to change the circumstances at some point. Change the environment.

👉 Because you cannot out-discipline a broken setup forever. That is your no-control circle. Stop wasting energy you never get back.

A day that alternates gears

Here’s a simple example day that alternates gears on purpose: wake without alarm (rest), coffee and journal (transition), walk in the forest with the podcast off (recreation), deep work block (work), training or fitness (recreation), second focused block (work), low stimulus break, maybe a nap (rest), review and pairing (work), then family, cooking, board games, reading (recreation), screens off, downshift, sleep (rest).

Notice the alternation. Short cycles. That’s the point.

The sharp distinction line

Rest restores capacity by doing less; recreation restores capacity by doing something meaningful. Especially important: recreation can unblock energy even when you slept well.

If it’s challenge, learning, social sparkle, or solitude you enjoy, it’s recreation.

If it’s a passive, numbing, algorithmic feed, it’s procrastination wearing recreation’s hoodie.

Call the impostor out 😀

The sticky sentence

Your life needs three gears: rest to recover, recreation to recharge, work to create, and pace control to switch gears on purpose. Say it in your next retro. Say it to your kids at dinner. Say it to yourself when Sunday anxiety hits.

Procrastination – Rest, Recreation, and Preparation in Disguise

Okay … I will write about procrastination again 😀 Because Resistance needs to be fought wherever I can.

There is a fourth state people slip into all the time, and it looks harmless.

Procrastination often pretends to be rest.

Sometimes it pretends to be recreation.

Occasionally, it even pretends to be preparation for work. You know, when you read books, how to start your business next year. But you actually listen to podcasts on how to optimize your not-yet-existing business. Don’t do that. Talk to me, I can help you. Really.

It is none of those.

Procrastination is what happens when you avoid choosing a gear.

You are not resting properly, because your nervous system never downshifts.

You are not recreating properly because there is no challenge, no joy, no feedback. And you are not preparing, because nothing actually gets clearer.

Doom scrolling is not rest. Random videos are not recreation. Endless note-taking without action is not preparation.

The difference is uncomfortable and straightforward: real rest repairs you, real recreation energizes you, real preparation reduces friction for action. Procrastination does none of that. It only delays the moment you have to commit.

If you catch yourself saying “I’m not ready yet”, ask one clean question:
Which gear am I actually in right now?

Then choose deliberately. Even choosing rest on purpose breaks the spell.

TL;DR

Three gears. Rest is maintenance. Recreation is the unlock. Work is creation. Cruise most days. Sprint rarely. Full-stop always. If you feel “burned out”, check the simple thing first. It’s often not burnout; it’s exhaustion. Take care of the rest. Take care of recreation. And when you have enough energy again, change the environment if the external agenda is crushing you.

Think about that. Enjoy the day. Goodbye.

—Adrian

Two things are extremely important if you wanna become a good professional, in any field. (That includes yours as well, so read on! 😀)

1 – The first thing is focus.

2 – The second thing is the ability to stay in a feedback loop. And this comes to my mind every time when I’m on an archery field, or in this case, a 3D Parcours.

You heard of those if you are on social media, but do you actually “focus” on focusing on a daily basis? Are you running a constant feedback loop for yourself?

Anyway, it makes sense to read on:

Why I Like Archery as a Sport

The reason I like it as a sport is exactly that. It’s a sport, and since I’m mostly a software development entrepreneur, I don’t do much sport while I’m at work. Still, I need to, because there is no other activity I can personally do that offers that level of precision in focus.

Archery forces you to be precise about what you do, when you aim, when you release, when you plan your shot, and what you’re doing with your body. And then of course you get the outcome.

Nothing is more frustrating than when you mess up a shot, lose your arrow in the forest, and realize it was because your mind was off and not on point.

Regret .. Reflect .. Accept .. Adapt …

Let’s get into that stuff:

The Loop: Commit, Execute, Adapt

You commit to a shot, you plan something, you execute, then you realize what actually happened, and then you adapt. If I mess up, I think about what I have done wrong at this position, from that angle, with that arrow type, at that distance. Was my finger not in the correct position? Was the anchor off? Did I rush? Then I adapt for the next shot as long as it works.

This is what makes you better every time you release an arrow, because you’re doing two things at once:

• Correct what you’ve done wrong (fast, practical, no drama)

• Remember what you’ve done right (so you can repeat it on purpose)

That’s also why, when I miss a shot, I take a follow-up shot, and I take a follow-up shot again, and then it’s over. But when I hit, I memorize that and go for the next target. There are enough targets. I want my brain to remember what works and what doesn’t, and that is simply a practice.

In both failure and success, I remember intentionally what worked and what did not.

Bragging and Regretting

A lot of archers do this; I’ve adopted it and use it in real life, too. I call it bragging and regretting.

• Regret is short-term. I regret what I just did wrong right now because I can do it better.

• Then regret is over. I accept it, adapt, correct, execute again, and see what happens.

• Bragging is pattern storage. When I hit, I say: This is done right, remember that one.

Important: Don’t brag or regret any longer; that is necessary. That’s to handle your short-term feelings, which are connected to yours. It’s a part of my stoic practice to let these emotions come up and instantly control them.

NEVER drive home and tell yourself:

• “I messed up so many shots, what a bad, I hate my life” (That’s nonsense)

• “Tell everybody how great of an archer you are” (Which you aren’t in relation to others)

It’s only about yourself, your progress, and your learning.

Why Traditional Gear Matters

A personal point: But after years on the range at 30+ years of coding, 18+years of entrepreneurship, I concluded:

It helps that this is a traditional bow. No optics, no helping devices.

If you want to do something, you need to do it all by yourself.

You have a very basic rest with a little bit of fur on it, and that’s it. This is what I really like. It’s also why I never bought a compound bow or an Olympic bow. I wanted it that way.

Because it puts you into situations that are a little bit like the entrepreneurial situation, it’s not standardized. It’s not a specific range, a specific angle, a specific weather condition.

Probably that’s why I like being in the more chaotic startup space than in corporate. 😀

Real Conditions, Real Adaptation

It is very cold right now, around minus five degrees. It’s very slippery. My fingers are getting chilly, and at some point you need to adapt to those things. That is not how you shoot indoors, or how you shoot in an indoor competition.

Even my nocks flew off today. In summer, it works very well with those, now they all flew off while I was shooting. Some I wasn’t able to find again, so I had to shoot with other arrows. I have two types of arrows with me right now, and the entire range I’m shooting with two arrows that are not meant to be shot with that bow. A similar kind of bow, but not the same, different draw weight. That means I need to adapt again.

So I’m doing the entire processing in real time:

• Use what I know from the past

• Apply it to different arrows, different bow behavior

• Under colder conditions than usual

• On a field, I’m not very often on

• Heavy, steep terrain; before most shots, I was climbing an icy hill.

All these things together make you a better shooter over time because you need to constantly reflect, adapt to what you have just done, and stay in focus.

The Same Thing in Software and Entrepreneurship

If you don’t have those two abilities, you cannot really execute. And that is the very same thing as a software developer and entrepreneur, a tech entrepreneur. You don’t know what happens. The environment is different every time. The conditions are different every time, and you need to adapt.

You don’t know:

• What clients will say

• What users will say

• How the market responds

• If employees stay with you, and who you’ll get next

• What issues newer tech will bring

And the feedback loops can be very fast there as well. I need to focus on something one day, focus only on these signals, then move on. But while you do that, you need to become better every time. Otherwise, you cannot keep up.

The fear of not being able to keep up has been and continues to be driving me. A reason I became stoic is that I can control the emotions that come with it. Is it necessary to have this drive? Yes.

If you try to tell me that drive isn’t necessary, you are most likely not an entrepreneur 😀 That’s fine, it’s a particular thing to do and get along with. I would be a horrible employee these days, I can tell.

Do Something That Trains This

That’s what I wanted to tell you today, because I think it’s a helpful metaphor. And I’d recommend you do something like that as well. It must not be archery. People do boxing; they do all sorts of sports where you need focus, execution, reflection, adaptation, and improvement.

Because when you do something while you’re walking, while you’re breathing, while your heart is pumping a little bit, you do it more intensely and you learn more. There’s evidence for that too. We know better when we move, and at best, when we’re outside.

Not much sunshine today, but I’m outside, and I can already say: it works pretty well.

I wish you a great day. I’ll continue now because my butt is freezing here on that bench.

See you next time. Goodbye.

—Adrian

Subscribe now

They call everything “potential” and then wonder why nothing moves. The truth is more straightforward and a bit more brutal. Potential is a possible reality that doesn’t exist yet, but can exist through you.

Not through vibes, not through wishful thinking, not through “one day” and primarily NOT through new year’s resolutions 😀 – Please…

Through you, every day, by discipline.

The Stoic filter: where does this live?

When I try to figure out if something is real potential or just dreamery, I run it through a Stoic lens:

Circle 1: Control. What can I do, decide, practice, ship, say, stop, start?

Circle 2: Influence. What can I shape through conversations, systems, incentives, and feedback loops?

Circle 3: No-control. What I can’t steer directly, especially not with ego and effort. Avoid putting time into the things in 3.

Potential lives in Circle 1 and 2.

Dreamery lives in Circle 3, and she loves to dress up as “vision”.

If you tell me you plan to “become a billionaire” or “I want to be the next Tony Robbins”, I’m not judging your hunger. I’m judging the signal-to-noise ratio. For most people, it’s not a plan, it’s a fantasy costume.

In the stoic sense: It’s not change, it’s decoration.

If you tell me you plan to become a strong software engineer, a respected tech lead, or a calm operator as a founder, that is different. That is a possible reality where your conscious mind and your subconscious mind can agree: “Yes, this is doable, if we become the person who can do it.”

That agreement is the quiet core of real potential.

For more information about how to handle the 3-Circles in a stoic sense, read this mentoring piece:

Potential is NOT your “Why.”

Your “Why” is essential. It gets you out of bed. It gives meaning when it’s hard.

But your “Why” is not your potential. Potential shows up closer to the ground.

Daily. Sometimes weekly.

You can see it. It’s clear enough to act on. There is a path, even if it’s incomplete, and you can take the next step without needing to solve the entire mountain.

And here’s the part people miss: when potential is real, you often feel Resistance.

Not because it’s wrong, but because it would change you.

Change triggers a war in our heads; we suddenly get tired, busy, doubtful, distracted, “not today”. The more critical the potential, the more creative your mind becomes at protecting the old identity.

That’s why dreamery is so seductive; it feels inspiring, but it asks nothing from you today.

Are you willing to make a change?
Are you willing to put in the time and effort?
Are you willing to become another person?

Then you need to develop the discipline to change every day toward your Why and put in that hard work every day. Not into a distant dream, next year.

Get 25% off for 1 year

A CTO example I see all the time

I mentor a bunch of CTOs right now, and there’s a pattern that repeats almost perfectly.

Many of them can feel a real potential:

To become a strategic, influential leader, someone who turns a messy org into a place where people do great work, where shipping becomes normal, where the system supports quality instead of fighting it.

That potential is clear.

But the path is noisy. The signal is missing. It’s unclear what to do first, what to stop, what conversations to have, and how to rewire the environment without burning political capital.

So what happens?

Not-yet-there-CTOs retreat into what they can do best: code reviews, architecture, “just quickly checking the PRs”, sometimes even opening the IDE and writing code again.

It feels productive, but it’s procrastination. It postpones the work they should do.

Because a CTO cannot control an environment of 20 developers as a single person in an IDE.

That was the past, when you were leading a group of 5 developers.

Accept it. Adapt. Look forward.

Your potential is no longer a feature; it’s the environment where 20 people can build a product without you becoming the bottleneck. In fact, a climate in which you aren’t necessary anymore to be present.

“I know I should be leading more, but I’m drowning, and at least in code I feel useful. The org feels chaotic, so I try to fix it by fixing the technical details.”

That sentence right there is the border between potential and dreamery.

The potential is leadership and system design in Circles 1 and 2.

The dreamery is the illusion that you can stabilize a whole org by being the hero in Circle 3.

The “potential practice” that actually works

This is the uncomfortable truth: you don’t discover your potential by consuming content. (Read one please 😀).

You discover it by doing self-leadership. (What you start to do right after this article).

That means you do work on yourself, not in an abstract way, but in a disciplined feedback cycle.

First, you get honest about who you are right now, not who you wish you were. Then you define who you need to become. Then you locate the potential, the real, actionable possibility that sits in your control and influence. Then you build the signal: the next steps that turn it into reality.

This is how it sounds in my head:

A) Assessment: Who am I right now? What do I repeatedly do when I’m under pressure? What do I avoid? Where do I hide?

B) Definition: Who do I need to become? What traits, habits, and boundaries would that person have?

C) Signals: What is my potential, right now? Not in ten years, right now, what possible reality is available to me if I change?

D) Action: What do I do next to make it real? What is the following conversation, the following constraint, the following system change, the following uncomfortable action?

E) Resilience: Discipline in both directions. Do at least the baseline today; also, don’t fall for shiny object syndrome. Stay on the path towards your signal!

Potential requires three things at the same time:

Focus on signals, feedback from reality, and discipline.

In simpler words: Act, reflect, accept, adapt – daily, with your goal in mind.

That’s the loop. And yes, it’s boring sometimes. It’s also the only thing that works.

The question that separates the two

Here’s the filter I want you to use today:

If you had to prove your potential is real within 7 days, what would you do differently tomorrow?

❌ If your answer is vague, it’s dreamery.

✅ If your answer creates Resistance, but also creates clarity, it’s probably real.

And if you keep “getting busy” with the thing you’re already good at, you already know what’s happening. Getting busy is procrastination.

You’re choosing comfort over change.

—Adrian

“We need more alignment.” – No, you need maintenance.

Stoicism gives you the correct mental model: everything decays unless you apply energy. Your body, your attention, your character, your relationships. Teams are the same. Culture has entropy. Cohesion is not a permanent state you achieve once; it is a weekly practice you keep alive. So here is the Monday move: assume drift, then design one small constraint that pulls everyone back into a shared identity.

“One team” is not a value; it’s an operating system

Many leaders try to solve fragmentation with statements.

“We’re one team.”

“We communicate openly.”

“We are inclusive.”

But values do not beat incentives, and slogans do not beat reality. The system wins. If the system makes it easiest to talk in the fastest language, people will. If the system rewards speed through side channels, side channels will grow. If the system allows decisions to happen where only a subset is present, the subset becomes the team. Culture is not what you believe; culture is what your environment makes effortless. The uncomfortable truth is simple: if someone can do their work without the rest of the team, they eventually will, and then you no longer have a team.

ℹ️ Principle: The Law of Least Effort (plus the Default Effect).
Under time pressure, people don’t choose what they endorse; they decide what costs the least effort. The environment becomes a silent decision-maker: what is fastest, most convenient, and socially rewarded turns into the default. That’s why incentives beat values, and why systems beat slogans. If the lowest-effort path is decided in a side channel, decisions will migrate there. If the lowest-effort path is speaking the majority language, that becomes the norm. If the lowest-effort path is “ship and hand off,” then “done” will quietly mean handoff. Over time, the team doesn’t just repeat the behavior; they internalize it as “how we work.”

Inclusion is not “being nice,” it is controlling the default

In many organizations, inclusion is treated like an attitude problem, as if people simply need to be more considerate. But most exclusion is not malice. It’s momentum. Under pressure, humans choose what is easy. They choose the path that costs the least energy. That is why drift happens. It isn’t personal, it’s physics.

Examples: Multilingual teams, and you are creating same-language subteams, even though you never wanted to have those. Because it’s easier to communicate in your mothers tongue.

Imagine a team with five Germans, two Portuguese, one Polish, and one English person, and you’ve “committed” to English. Even then, if you tell the team to self-organize and form sub-teams for the day, you can predict the outcome before it happens. The low-friction path creates language clusters, and language clusters create isolation, even if everyone had good intentions.

The leader’s job is to change the default, not with speeches but with constraints. The Stoic question is, what is actually in my control here? You cannot control whether people like each other. You cannot control whether everyone stays motivated. But you can control the system that decides who is “in the room” when the real work happens, and you can control whether decisions are made in places the whole team can see. That is leadership.

You can influence how you act, and you can influence the environment in which everybody is dwelling daily – nothing more, nothing less.

So what would you influence to change isolation here? Do you have an answer to that?

The clarity test for “Are we one team?”

Here is a simple measure of cohesion: can any person on the team answer three questions without hesitation?

• What are we building right now?

• How do decisions get made?

• Where do I go when I’m blocked?

If those answers depend on who you ask, you don’t have one team; you have multiple maps with multiple capitals. And the people on the edge always feel it first, while the leader often feels it last, because leaders tend to live in the center by default. The test is not “Do we feel good?” The test is: can the person with the least context still operate with confidence?

Your move for this week

Make collaboration visible by default. Make the team language shared by default. Choose one and enforce it gently but consistently.

Pick one recurring moment where drift shows up, then install one “anti-drift” constraint. Not ten changes. One. You are not trying to micromanage the team; you are trying to make cohesion the path of least resistance. The constraints that work are boring, consistent, and easy to follow. Make decision-making public by default. Make collaboration visible by default. Make the team language shared by default. Choose one and enforce it gently but consistently.

If you want a sentence you can use in your first meeting this week, use this: starting now, decisions that affect the team happen in a place the whole team can see. If it isn’t visible, it isn’t decided. That sentence removes a surprising amount of quiet exclusion, not because people are bad, but because you changed what “normal” looks like.

What to write in your mirror-book today

If you do one reflective exercise today, make it this: where is the “real team” currently happening, and who is not in it? Which channel, meeting, or habit decides things without being accountable to the whole team? What did I tolerate because it was efficient, even though it made the team smaller? Be honest. This is not for guilt. This is for design. A Stoic leader does not blame the weather; they adjust the sails.

🍀 Learn how to journal in a stoic leadership way:

Subscribe now

A 10-minute experiment that changes everything

This week, run a ten-minute “One Team Reset.” In your next team meeting, ask for a 60-second answer from each person: what you're working on, what you need, and what decision is blocked. Then do the one thing that matters: write down the blockers and choose a single owner for removing each one. Not “we’ll see.” Not “let’s sync.” One owner.

Teams don’t drift apart because they don’t care. They drift apart because the system allows problems to live in private until they harden into separation. Make problems visible early, and cohesion returns.

Close

A team is not a family by default. It is a system, and systems decay unless you maintain them. So this Monday, assume drift, then add one small piece of structure that makes “one team” the easiest option. If you want, reply with the one place your team currently drifts, and I’ll suggest a single constraint that fits your situation without adding meetings.

—Adrian

Old-But-Gold 😀 The Broken Windows effect is basically the same idea in a different perspective.