There was nothing particularly dramatic about it; we had just grown apart (seriously). Although there had been loyalty for years, I realized that I wasn’t learning anything or growing from this relationship, and in many ways, it was increasing my anxiety and leading to a lot of overwhelm.

So, I broke up with my Apple Watch and immediately rebounded to the Oura ring.

Hope I gotcha a little bit ;)

I wanted to learn more about my sleep and readiness while eliminating the unnecessary notifications. Almost two years later, that has happened tenfold, but I didn’t expect to learn something much more interesting about the way I move through an entire day.

Oura identified me as a mid-morning chronotype, roughly what some popular chronotype systems call a “bear.” The designation made immediate sense. I wake up naturally every morning, usually around sunrise. I like mornings, but I am not someone who springs out of bed in the dark before dawn, ready to conquer the world.

My energy builds over the first few hours of the day, and I tend to do my best focused work from mid-morning into the early afternoon. By evening, I have very little interest in doing cognitively demanding work. I have never been a night owl, and attempts to turn myself into one have mostly resulted in staring unproductively at my computer while wondering why something that would have taken me 30 minutes at 10 a.m. is taking me two hours at 9 p.m.

None of those things were revelations on their own. I had been living inside this body for decades. Of course I knew that I preferred working earlier in the day and winding down at night. What changed was that I stopped interpreting those preferences as merely preferences.

Chronotype describes individual differences in the timing of our circadian rhythms—our natural tendencies toward sleeping, waking, alertness, and activity at different points across the day. Some people naturally function earlier. Others function later. Many of us fall somewhere in between. Although our schedules, habits, age, environment, and obligations all influence how those tendencies show up in everyday life, the underlying concept is surprisingly simple: our bodies do not experience every hour of the day in exactly the same way.

Our calendars, however, largely pretend that they do.

We are generally expected to work between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., or somewhere relatively close to that timeframe. So we try to squeeze in other necessary obligations, like exercise, before or after work, while also making time to socialize and decompress, clean our homes, and maintain our lives in the other pockets of time. Then, when we struggle to concentrate, drag ourselves through a workout, feel strangely depleted after an otherwise ordinary day, or find ourselves wide awake at the precise moment we are supposed to be sleeping, we tend to treat the problem as one of discipline, age, or health.

Maybe we need a better routine. More motivation. Better time management. More sleep. Less sleep. An earlier alarm. A stricter bedtime. Another cup of coffee. A supplement regimen. More exercise.

Sometimes, perhaps.

That question extends well beyond productivity. Work, exercise, rest, sleep, and social connection are often treated as separate pieces of a well-balanced life, each requiring its own optimization strategy. Biologically, however, they aren’t separate at all. The same body has to do all of them.

Understanding your chronotype doesn’t mean surrendering your calendar to your circadian rhythm or refusing every meeting that occurs outside your biological prime. Most of us do not have that degree of control over our lives, nor do we need it. But it gives us another piece of information to help us decide how to use the parts of the day we can control.

What Your Chronotype Can Tell You

Most of us already have some sense of where we fall on the morning-person/night-owl spectrum. Chronotype gives that intuition a more precise biological foundation. It reflects differences in the circadian system that regulates our roughly 24-hour patterns of sleep, wakefulness, alertness, and other physiological processes. Chronotype has biological and genetic components, but it is also influenced by factors including age and environment and can shift across the lifespan.

The popular language surrounding chronotypes can make the concept seem more categorical than it actually is. You may have encountered lions, bears, wolves, and dolphins, each accompanied by recommendations for when that particular “type” should wake, work, exercise, eat, and sleep. Those categories can make the concept accessible, but chronotype research generally places people along a continuum from earlier to later types. Oura uses six categories ranging from early morning to late evening based on longer-term patterns in sleep, activity, and body temperature.

The category itself is less interesting than what happens when the timing of our lives aligns, or doesn’t, with our natural rhythms. Researchers have found evidence for what is known as a synchrony effect, in which some aspects of cognitive performance can improve when tasks occur at times that correspond with an individual’s chronotype. A recent systematic review found evidence of these effects in a substantial portion of studies, particularly for attention, inhibition, and memory, although the findings were not universal. Chronotype does not determine how intelligent or productive you are, and being a morning person does not confer some inherent professional advantage. Timing appears to be part of the equation.

The reverse situation is also worth considering. Researchers use the term social jetlag to describe a mismatch between our internal biological timing and the schedules imposed by work, school, and other social obligations. Someone with a later chronotype, for example, may spend the workweek waking much earlier than their body naturally prefers, shift later on the weekend when the constraint disappears, and then return abruptly to the earlier schedule on Monday. Persistent circadian misalignment has been associated with unfavorable sleep and health outcomes, although those relationships are complex and should not be interpreted to mean that social jetlag alone causes poor health.

Share

Work schedules can also create the boundaries around which everything else gets arranged. Exercise goes before or after work. Socializing moves into the evening. Household responsibilities occupy another available pocket, while sleep and recovery are expected to accommodate whatever remains. A schedule that conflicts with your natural rhythms can therefore affect much more than how alert you feel during a meeting.

None of us can eliminate those conflicts entirely. Jobs have schedules. Children have school. Friends want dinner. Flights leave at terrible hours. Sometimes the only Pilates class you can attend really is at 6 a.m. But there is a meaningful difference between the parts of our schedules that are fixed and the ones we construct ourselves. Chronotype becomes useful in that second category, where knowing more about your own patterns can help you decide when different activities make the most sense.

Designing Life Around Your Chronotype

Learning that I was a mid-morning chronotype did not prompt me to overhaul my entire life. In many ways, it confirmed patterns I had already developed naturally. What changed was my willingness to take those patterns seriously when deciding how to structure my days.

Work was probably the easiest place to see the difference. I have a lot of flexibility and autonomy as a college professor, so I recognize that some of this is a luxury. Because my energy and concentration build throughout the morning, I now try to protect roughly 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. for work that requires the most from me intellectually: writing, research, developing ideas, and other cognitively demanding tasks. When possible, the 2–5 p.m. window is for meetings, email, administrative work, scheduling, and responsibilities that don’t require my sharpest concentration. I cannot always maintain those boundaries, but when the schedule belongs to me, I try not to voluntarily put my most difficult work at the time of day when I know I am less equipped to do it.

Exercise requires a slightly different calculation. Research on chronotype and physical performance isn't consistent enough to justify rigid prescriptions about exactly when each type should work out, and the best workout time still has to fit the realities of your life. For me, a Pilates class around 9:30 a.m. is ideal. I can have a slow, intentional morning without feeling rushed, arrive at class fully awake, and come home energized just as I approach my strongest working hours. A slower workout, such as a trail walk, works beautifully for me in the evening when the weather cooperates. I am no longer asking that part of the day to produce intense concentration anyway, and walking gives me somewhere useful to put the remaining physical energy as I begin to transition out of work.

Rest follows naturally from that pattern. I know my energy declines in the evening, so I have stopped expecting the final hours of the day to function as an extension of my workday. I like to begin my official wind-down around sunset. Once it is dark, I am generally off the work clock altogether and trying to calm my brain and body down for the day. There will always be exceptions, but late-night work is no longer something I schedule for myself and then become frustrated when I struggle to do it well.

Social life may be the least obvious application, but I have increasingly noticed it there, too. A dinner, party, date, or night out requires energy like anything else, and it doesn't happen independently of everything that happened earlier in the day. Paying attention to my chronotype has made me more aware of how much I pack into a day before social plans, what kinds of plans work well at different times, and why the same invitation can sound wonderful on one day and exhausting on another.

Taken individually, these are small decisions. Together, they have changed the architecture of my days. I still work outside my preferred hours, exercise at less-than-ideal times, stay out late, travel across time zones, and do all the other things that make a perfectly optimized circadian life impossible. The difference is that I am more deliberate about the timing I actually control.

Finding Your Own Rhythm

You also do not need a wearable to figure this out. Devices like Oura can be useful because they collect patterns over time, but researchers have been measuring chronotype for much longer than smart rings have existed.

One established tool is the Munich ChronoType Questionnaire, which examines sleep timing on workdays and free days and uses the midpoint of sleep on obligation-free days, adjusted for accumulated sleep debt, as an indicator of chronotype. Other chronotype questionnaires use slightly different approaches, but the broader principle is useful even without formally completing one: pay particular attention to what your body does when external obligations are removed.

When do you naturally become sleepy if you do not have to force yourself to bed? When do you wake without an alarm? At what point in the day does sustained concentration feel easiest? When does your energy noticeably change? It can be helpful to observe those patterns over several weeks rather than relying on one unusually energetic morning or exhausted evening. Work schedules, children, travel, sleep deprivation, illness, and countless other factors can temporarily obscure the rhythm underneath.

Once you have a reasonable sense of that rhythm, look at your actual calendar. You probably cannot move everything, and depending on your job and responsibilities, you may not be able to move very much at all. Start with what is genuinely discretionary. Perhaps your hardest work can move by an hour. Maybe the workout you continually skip belongs at another point in the day. Maybe you can stop routinely assigning yourself cognitively demanding work at night when you already know you rarely accomplish it.

You are looking for patterns that make your existing life easier to live, not a biologically perfect schedule.

A Different Way to Think About Sustainability

We talk about sustainable achievement frequently in Strategically SASC because a career is built across years and decades, not during a particularly productive Tuesday. Yet much of how we organize our days still assumes performance is primarily a matter of managing time well enough.

Chronotype adds another dimension to that conversation. Two hours on a calendar may be identical in duration while asking very different things from the person living through them. The same is true of a morning workout, an evening event, or the hour when we expect ourselves to fall asleep. Paying attention to those differences has made me much more thoughtful about how the pieces of my own life fit together.

There are still plenty of days when my calendar wins. Yours will, too. But our external obligations already make enough decisions about our time for us. When some portion of the day remains ours to arrange, understanding how we naturally function can help us use that flexibility more intelligently.

For me, that knowledge started with a piece of jewelry I bought because I wanted fewer notifications.

It turns out the breakup was good for me.

As Grede moves through the decades, the parallel becomes even stronger. Once you’ve accumulated money, the job shifts from simply earning more to protecting and compounding what you’ve built. Reputation reaches the same inflection point. After years of accumulating expertise, relationships, accomplishments, and credibility, you have something valuable enough to protect—and your choices can either strengthen that reputation or dilute it.

Then comes perhaps the most interesting parallel of all: Grede argues that eventually, your money should begin working for you. A mature reputation should do the same. After decades of demonstrating what you know, how you work, and what people can trust you to do, your reputation should begin creating opportunities, accelerating trust, and giving you greater choice about what comes next. Grede covers this progression in the podcast and goes much deeper into her approach to money in her book.

That realization changed how I think about professional reputation. We tend to treat reputation as though its job remains static throughout our careers: build a good one, maintain it, try not to damage it. But if money moves from building value to protecting and compounding that value to eventually creating greater freedom, why wouldn’t reputation? The reputation you need while establishing yourself professionally should not function exactly like the reputation you need after twenty or thirty years of accumulated credibility. Its job should evolve, too.

Before we go any further, though, an important disclaimer: these are career stages, not deadlines. I’m going to use our 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s as shorthand because they provide a useful way to think about the typical progression of a career, but professional lives are rarely that orderly. Someone who reinvents herself at 48 may return to a period of building. Someone who achieves unusual visibility at 29 may already need to think carefully about protecting what she has accumulated. Your age matters far less here than the stage of professional development you are actually navigating.

So the question isn’t simply whether you have a “good” professional reputation. It’s whether your reputation is performing the right job for the career you have now. Across a career, that job tends to evolve in four important ways: build, own, compound, and leverage. Understanding where you are in that progression can change not only how you think about your reputation, but what you should be doing with it next.

Your 20s: Build

Grede argues that the financial job of your 20s is not to get rich, but to become valuable. I think the same principle applies almost perfectly to reputation. Early in your career, the most important thing you can do for your professional reputation is give it something substantive to represent.

That distinction matters because young professionals now enter a workplace that places enormous emphasis on visibility. There is pressure to build a network, develop a personal brand, post on LinkedIn, establish expertise, and make sure the right people know your name. Some of that can be useful.

Your 20s are therefore an unusually valuable period for getting smart. Learn how your industry actually works. Develop expertise that is useful and increasingly distinctive. Pay attention to the people who are excellent at what they do and figure out what makes them excellent. Take assignments that stretch you, make mistakes, become someone others can depend on, and accumulate evidence that you can deliver. This is also the time to experiment, because you do not yet need every professional choice to reinforce an identity you have spent decades establishing.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to become known. But early in a career, becoming known should remain secondary to becoming worth knowing. A reputation can amplify value once it exists; it is much less effective at compensating for value that was never developed in the first place.

Your 30s: Own

By your 30s, the reputational assignment begins to change. You may have spent the previous decade benefiting from the credibility of other people and institutions: a respected boss who advocated for you, a mentor who made introductions, a prestigious employer on your résumé, a strong team, or collaborators whose names helped yours carry more weight. There is nothing inherently wrong with borrowed credibility. Most careers are built with help, and professional relationships are one of the ways credibility travels.

The danger is never converting borrowed credibility into credibility of your own.

This is the stage when your professional reputation should become increasingly portable. If you left your organization tomorrow, what would people still associate with you? If your mentor stopped making introductions, would people understand what you bring to the table? If you separated from a prominent collaborator, would your expertise remain legible on its own?

This is also when positioning becomes more important. Your 20s give you room to explore; your 30s should begin producing greater clarity about what you want your name to mean professionally. That does not require narrowing yourself into a single specialty or committing to one identity forever. It means becoming more intentional about the associations you are accumulating.

The goal is reputational independence. Collaborate widely, build strong relationships, work for excellent organizations, and learn from people whose credibility exceeds your own. Just make sure that somewhere along the way, people begin understanding what your name contributes to the equation.

Share

Your 40s: Compound

By your 40s, assuming you have spent the previous stages building value and establishing a reputation that is recognizably your own, the calculation changes again. Grede describes the financial job of this decade as protecting and compounding what you have already built. Reputation deserves the same kind of stewardship.

Earlier in your career, you may evaluate opportunities primarily according to what they could add. Will this project give me useful experience? Will this person introduce me to people I should know? Will this role make me more visible? Once you have accumulated meaningful reputational capital, however, you also have to consider what an opportunity could subtract. Every project, partnership, organization, client, public position, and professional relationship creates associations.

That makes selectivity increasingly important. Saying no is not only about protecting your calendar; sometimes it is about protecting your reputation. You do not have to accept every invitation simply because it is flattering, collaborate with everyone who wants access to you, or remain professionally attached to people whose judgment no longer aligns with your own. Reputational independence matters even more once there is something substantial to protect.

This is also where reputation can begin to compound. Over the past 12 weeks in Credibility Capital: The Intensive, we have explored the idea that credibility is accumulated through repeated evidence of competence, contribution, judgment, and trust. Reputation works similarly. When the choices you make repeatedly reinforce what people already have good reason to believe about you, each new piece of evidence strengthens the larger pattern. A strong reputation becomes less dependent on any single accomplishment because it rests on years of consistent signals.

The goal at this stage, then, is not simply to keep adding more to your professional life. It is to become more discerning about what deserves to be added at all.

Your 50s+: Leverage

Eventually, a well-built reputation should begin doing some of the work for you. Grede makes a similar argument about money in your 50s: the objective increasingly becomes ensuring that the assets you have accumulated create choice. The reputational equivalent is not fame or universal name recognition. It is optionality.

A mature professional reputation means people rarely encounter you as a completely unknown entity. Your name already carries information about the quality of your work, your expertise, your judgment, how you treat people, and whether you can be trusted to deliver. That accumulated knowledge can reduce friction in ways that are easy to underestimate. Someone recommends you for an opportunity before you know it exists. A prospective client arrives already understanding why your work is valuable. An organization gives you greater latitude because you have demonstrated good judgment before.

None of this means that reputation becomes a substitute for performance. A strong track record cannot indefinitely compensate for poor work, bad judgment, or a failure to evolve. What it can do is change your starting position. Instead of repeatedly having to establish your credibility from zero, you begin with the benefit of what you have already demonstrated.

And that may be the most valuable return on decades spent building a strong professional reputation. Eventually, your reputation should not merely tell people who you have been. It should give you greater freedom to decide who you want to become next.

What Is Your Reputation Doing for You?

Most of us think about professional reputation cumulatively. We want to build a stronger one, become better known, earn more credibility, and accumulate more evidence that we are good at what we do. But thinking only about how much reputation you have misses the more interesting question: Is your reputation performing the right job for the career you have now?

You may still be focused on becoming more visible when what you actually need is greater selectivity. You may have accumulated substantial credibility but left too much of it attached to an employer, collaborator, mentor, or institution. You may have spent decades building an excellent reputation without ever considering how to convert it into greater choice. Or you may have achieved visibility faster than you developed the expertise necessary to sustain it.

A strong professional reputation should not simply get bigger as your career progresses. It should become more useful. You build the substance behind it, establish ownership of it, protect and compound what you have accumulated, and eventually allow that accumulated credibility to create opportunities that would have been much harder to access earlier in your career.

That is ultimately what a good reputation should give you: not fame, and certainly not permission to stop proving yourself, but greater agency over where your career goes next.

Want to build your Credibility Capital?

Credibility Capital: The Intensive has officially wrapped, but all 12 weeks of the program are now available in the Strategically SASC archive. Paid subscribers can access the complete Intensive for $8/month and work through the entire program from the beginning, at their own pace.

Subscribe now

This post contains affiliate links.

Professional credibility is not built through isolated accomplishments.

It develops gradually through the accumulation of decisions, behaviors, and relationships that reinforce one another over time.

Looking back on a career, it’s easy to identify the milestones. We remember the promotion that expanded our responsibilities, the project that introduced us to a new opportunity, the mentor who changed our perspective, or the role that altered the trajectory of our work. These moments stand out because they are visible. They provide convenient markers for explaining how our careers have unfolded.

Yet those milestones rarely emerge in isolation.

Long before a promotion is offered or a new opportunity appears, something else has already been happening. Trust has been established through consistent performance. Professional relationships have developed over months or years. A reputation has quietly formed through repeated interactions. Expertise has been demonstrated often enough that others begin associating your name with a particular kind of contribution.

By the time a visible opportunity arrives, much of the work that made it possible has already been done.

That has been the central idea throughout Credibility Capital: The Intensive. Professional success is rarely the product of one defining moment. More often, it reflects years of investing in an asset that becomes increasingly valuable over time.

That asset is credibility.

Credibility Compounds

One reason credibility is easy to overlook is that its effects are rarely immediate.

When you prepare thoroughly for a meeting, follow through on a commitment, strengthen a professional relationship, or contribute a thoughtful idea, the payoff is seldom visible that day. In many cases, nothing obvious happens. Life simply moves forward.

Over time, however, those seemingly ordinary actions begin reinforcing one another.

A reputation for reliability develops because people repeatedly experience you as someone who follows through. Professional relationships become stronger because you’ve invested in them consistently rather than only when you needed something. A recognizable point of view emerges because you’ve continued contributing thoughtful ideas instead of reacting to whatever topic happens to be popular at the moment. Even expertise becomes easier for others to recognize when you demonstrate it consistently across many different situations.

Viewed individually, these actions may appear insignificant.

Viewed collectively, they become one of the most valuable professional assets you possess.

This is what makes credibility different from many other career investments. It has the potential to compound. The effort you invest today often creates opportunities that may not appear until months or even years later, and those opportunities frequently lead to relationships, experiences, and responsibilities that continue strengthening your credibility.

There Is No Finish Line

Many professionals unknowingly treat credibility as though it has a finish line.

They imagine that once they earn a particular degree, receive a promotion, build a larger network, or establish themselves within their field, they will have reached a point where credibility simply exists on its own.

In reality, every new opportunity creates new expectations.

A promotion introduces new leadership responsibilities. A larger platform places greater visibility on your decisions. New relationships require continued investment. Greater expertise often brings more complex questions and higher performance standards.

Rather than viewing this as discouraging, it’s more helpful to see credibility for what it is: an ongoing professional practice.

The habits that establish trust early in your career remain valuable throughout every stage that follows. Preparation still matters. Reliability still matters. Thoughtful communication still matters. So do curiosity, generosity, and the willingness to continue learning.

Credibility is not something we achieve once and then possess permanently.

We reinforce it through the way we approach our work every day.

A Career Built on Trust

Throughout this program, we’ve discussed visibility, professional relationships, thought leadership, reputation, and personal credibility as though they were separate topics. In practice, however, they are deeply connected because each one ultimately depends on the same underlying principle: trust.

Every meaningful professional opportunity requires someone else to trust your ability to contribute. A colleague invites you to collaborate because they trust your judgment. A supervisor recommends you for greater responsibility because they trust your reliability. A client chooses to work with you because they trust your expertise. Even the opportunity to share your ideas publicly depends upon others believing that your perspective is worth hearing.

Competence may create the possibility for these opportunities.

Trust is often what transforms that possibility into reality.

That is why credibility deserves intentional attention throughout a career. It influences not only how others perceive your accomplishments, but also whether they believe you are someone they can depend on when the stakes are higher.

Putting It All Together

If you’ve completed each week of Credibility Capital: The Intensive, you’ve likely noticed that none of the individual lessons promised a dramatic transformation. No single strategy was designed to guarantee a promotion, instantly expand your network, or establish you as an expert overnight.

That was intentional.

Professional credibility rarely develops through one extraordinary action. Instead, it grows through the interaction of many different behaviors that reinforce one another over time.

The work you produce influences your reputation. Your reputation shapes the opportunities you’re offered. Those opportunities expand your professional relationships, which create new ways to contribute your expertise and increase your visibility. As your ideas become more widely recognized, your credibility continues to grow, creating opportunities that would have been difficult to access earlier in your career.

Each part of the process strengthens the others.

That is why we’ve spent the past twelve weeks examining credibility from multiple perspectives rather than searching for a single “secret” to professional success. Your career isn’t built on one skill or one accomplishment. It’s built on an ecosystem of decisions, relationships, habits, and experiences that continuously influence one another.

The encouraging news is that you can approach each of those areas more intentionally.

You may not control every opportunity that comes your way, but you can control how consistently you prepare, how thoughtfully you communicate, how generously you support others, how intentionally you invest in relationships, and how carefully you protect the reputation you’ve earned.

Those choices may not always produce immediate results.

Over time, however, they rarely go unnoticed.

Your Credibility Capital Commitment

Over the past twelve weeks, you’ve explored what it means to build, strengthen, communicate, and protect your professional credibility. Rather than ending this program with another reflection exercise, I’d encourage you to conclude by making a personal commitment about how you want to approach your career moving forward.

Think of this as a professional agreement with yourself. The value isn’t in completing the page. The value is in identifying the habits and priorities you’ll continue practicing long after this series ends.

Read more

Before I lose you already, let me tell you about one of the most important things we can learn from Rory Gilmore’s professional journey, so you don’t end up stealing a boat and self-imploding for the next decade.

While she was an aspiring journalist studying at Yale, Rory interned at a newspaper owned by Mitchum Huntzberger, who also happened to be her boyfriend Logan's father. By Rory’s estimation, the internship was going well. She arrived prepared. She paid attention. She anticipated what people needed. She made herself useful. She was smart, conscientious, organized, and eager to learn. In other words, Rory had done what she had spent most of her life doing extraordinarily well: she had figured out how to be the person everyone wanted her to be.

Then Mitchum sat her down and told her, “You don’t got it.”

His assessment was brutal, but his explanation was more interesting than the verdict itself. He acknowledged that Rory was smart and competent. What he hadn’t seen was enough willingness to put herself forward. In a meeting where everyone had been invited to contribute, Rory stayed quiet. When she explained that she wasn’t sure whether she was supposed to speak, Mitchum saw that uncertainty as confirmation of his point.

Rory responded with perhaps the most revealing line in the entire exchange: “I’ve always done what’s asked of me.”

Therein lies the problem.

Rory had spent the internship being helpful, pleasant, attentive, and accommodating. What she had not done nearly as clearly was establish who she was in that environment: what she knew, what she thought, what she questioned, or what she might contribute that nobody had explicitly asked her to contribute. In doing so, she made herself harder to keep employing.

Whether Mitchum was right about Rory’s potential as a journalist is beside the point. The tension he identified extends well beyond Gilmore Girls, and it is especially familiar to women.

Women receive a complicated set of messages about how to behave professionally, and often at the top of the list is “be someone easy to work with.” We see Instagram posts with similar sentiments that oversimplify the idea, like saying the number one tip for success is to be easy to work with. It’s well-intentioned and important advice, but for women especially, it’s hard to know what that really means.

What Makes Someone Easy to Work With?

Since I’m preparing for a new semester filled with new students and co-workers, I’ve been thinking about first impressions lately. In fact, after more than a decade in academia, I’ve become a bit of a Mitchum in assessing whether new faculty members have what it takes to thrive. What strikes me is how little some of those early judgments have to do with whether someone is technically good at their job, and how much they're based on perceptions of ease.

We tend to think about professional reputation primarily in terms of competence: what we know, what we have accomplished, and what we can do. Those things matter enormously. But competence is not something other people experience in the abstract. They experience it through working with us.

You can be brilliant and chronically late. You can have tremendous expertise and become defensive whenever someone asks a question. You can produce excellent work while routinely missing deadlines, or communicate your ideas in ways that make other people reluctant to contribute their own. None of those behaviors erases your expertise, but they do change the experience of working with you.

Share

The same is true in the other direction. Think about the colleagues you most enjoy working with. Chances are, they communicate clearly. They do what they say they will do. When circumstances change, they let you know rather than making you chase them for an update. They share information instead of guarding it. They can disagree without turning disagreement into conflict. They respect other people’s time, expertise, and contributions.

Perhaps most importantly, working with them does not require managing them.

That matters more than we sometimes acknowledge. When you cannot predict whether someone will follow through, you check in more often. When you don’t know whether a question will provoke defensiveness, you become careful about what you ask. When deadlines routinely slip without warning, you build contingencies. When every disagreement could become personal, you start managing the relationship alongside the work.

That kind of unnecessary friction has a cost. It consumes attention, time, and energy that could otherwise go toward what everyone is actually there to accomplish.

The people who are easy to work with reduce that friction. They make collaboration feel relatively straightforward because their colleagues do not have to spend excessive energy interpreting, anticipating, compensating for, or working around their behavior. Over time, that consistency builds trust and credibility, which is what makes being easy to work with a genuine professional advantage.

The Gender Problem With Being “Easy”

There is, however, an obvious problem with telling women that they should become easier to work with: women have been told some version of this for a very long time.

Research on gender and workplace evaluations has documented the competing expectations women navigate. Studies of the “backlash effect” have found that women can face social penalties when displaying agentic behaviors such as assertiveness and independence, even though those same qualities are associated with professional competence and leadership. Women may therefore be expected to demonstrate authority while remaining sufficiently warm and agreeable.

Helpfulness creates another complication. Research on “low-promotability tasks”—necessary work that contributes relatively little to career advancement—has found that women are more likely than men to volunteer for this work, more likely to be asked to do it, and more likely to agree when asked.

This is where being easy to work with can become something quite different.

The colleague who always covers the gap, takes on another task, accommodates the schedule, or absorbs the extra work may develop a reputation for being extraordinarily helpful. But over time, that same pattern can establish an expectation that her time is flexible, her capacity is available, and she can be counted on to make everyone else’s lives easier.

In fact, some of the behaviors that make someone an excellent colleague require introducing a little friction. A good colleague may tell you that a deadline is unrealistic before agreeing to work she cannot complete. She may correct inaccurate information because allowing it to stand would hurt the project. She may decline work that does not belong to her, advocate for appropriate credit, or explain why her expertise leads her to a different conclusion.

Those behaviors can make an interaction less comfortable in the moment while making the working relationship considerably stronger over time. Clear boundaries help people understand what they can reasonably expect from one another. Respectful disagreement can improve decisions. Confident expertise contributes something useful to the work rather than simply affirming whatever everyone else already thinks.

That is the lesson Rory had not yet learned during her internship. She had become extraordinarily skilled at anticipating what other people needed from her, but professional contribution sometimes requires offering something nobody has thought to ask for.

For women especially, being easy to work with cannot mean eliminating every moment of discomfort, disagreement, inconvenience, or tension. Sometimes good work requires all four. A more useful standard is whether we create friction because our judgment, expertise, or boundaries require it, or simply make other people’s work harder than it needs to be.

Be Easy to Work With

Being easy to work with is one of those professional qualities that can sound almost embarrassingly basic. It is much easier to talk about expertise, leadership, influence, or strategic visibility. Those qualities seem consequential. Showing up on time, meeting deadlines, sharing information generously, communicating clearly, maintaining a constructive attitude, and respecting other people’s time can feel like the minimum.

Maybe they should be, but anyone who has worked long enough knows they aren’t.

These everyday behaviors shape how other people experience our competence. Expertise becomes less valuable to a team when everyone has to work around the person who possesses it. By contrast, someone who contributes strong work while communicating, collaborating, and following through creates value beyond the quality of the work itself.

That does not require becoming endlessly accommodating or stifling our identity. Some of the easiest people I know to work with have strong opinions, firm boundaries, high standards, and no difficulty saying no. What makes working with them easy is knowing where you stand. They know what they bring to the table and don't need to diminish anyone else to prove it. They are confident enough to share what they know, secure enough to listen when someone else knows more, and clear enough about their capacity to make commitments they can actually keep.

That kind of ease builds trust. It strengthens credibility, and, perhaps most importantly, it makes people want to work with you again.

We spend enormous amounts of time thinking about how to become more accomplished, more visible, more influential, and more impressive at work. Those things matter, but professional life is also profoundly relational, and people remember the experience of working with us as much as the quality of what we produced.

The true Gilmore Girls fans know how smart and brave Rory is, but Mitchum experienced a total wallflower, and that perception had major implications for Rory’s career. The lesson is not to worry less about being easy to work with. It is to understand that professional ease comes from bringing your full competence to the relationship: your voice, your judgment, your boundaries, your reliability, and your respect for the people working alongside you.

Being easy to work with should never require becoming less of yourself. Done well, it means becoming more secure in what you bring to the table and making it easier for others to bring their best, too.

You’ve clarified what you want to be known for. You’ve documented your accomplishments, strengthened your visibility, expanded your professional relationships, and begun developing a clearer point of view. Each of these efforts contributes to how others experience you and the value they associate with your work.

Collectively, they also contribute to something even larger:

Your professional reputation.

Ironically, reputation is something many professionals think about only after something goes wrong. A difficult conversation with a supervisor, negative feedback from a client, a mistake on an important project, or an uncomfortable interaction with a colleague suddenly brings reputation into focus. By that point, however, your reputation has already become part of the conversation.

The strongest professional reputations aren’t built during moments of crisis. They’re built—and protected—long before they’re ever tested.

That doesn’t mean you’ll never make a mistake or encounter criticism. Every professional does. Rather, it means recognizing that your reputation is one of your most valuable professional assets and treating it with the same intentionality you’ve applied throughout this program.

This week, we’ll explore what professional reputation really is, why it matters, and how small, consistent actions help protect the credibility you’ve worked so hard to establish.

Your Reputation Exists Whether You Manage It or Not

One of the biggest misconceptions about professional reputation is that it simply reflects who you are.

In reality, your reputation is something slightly different.

It is the collection of beliefs, expectations, and impressions that other people develop about you over time. Those impressions are shaped not only by your accomplishments, but also by your behavior, communication, reliability, consistency, and the countless everyday interactions that occur throughout your professional life.

Whether you think about it or not, people are constantly gathering information that helps them answer questions such as:

• Can I depend on this person?

• Do they follow through on their commitments?

• Are they prepared?

• Do they communicate clearly?

• Can I trust them with greater responsibility?

• Would I recommend them for an opportunity?

Notice that very few of these questions are answered by a résumé alone.

Instead, they’re answered through repeated experience.

Every meeting you attend, every email you send, every deadline you meet, every promise you keep, and every interaction you have contributes another data point to the picture others are forming about you. Individually, these moments may seem insignificant. Collectively, they become your professional reputation.

This is why reputation deserves proactive attention rather than reactive concern. You don’t decide whether or not you’ll have a reputation. You already do. The real question is whether you’re being intentional about the signals you’re sending every day.

The Reputation Gap

One of the most important things to understand about professional reputation is that it isn’t created solely by your intentions.

It’s created by other people’s experiences of you.

That distinction may seem subtle, but it has significant implications for how we think about our careers.

Most of us have a fairly clear sense of the professional qualities we’d like to project. Perhaps you see yourself as collaborative, dependable, innovative, approachable, or detail-oriented. Those qualities become part of your professional identity and often influence how you approach your work.

The challenge is that intentions don’t always translate into perceptions.

Imagine, for example, that you pride yourself on being highly detail-oriented. You carefully review every document, anticipate potential problems, and strive to produce high-quality work. Those are valuable strengths. However, if projects consistently take longer than expected because you’re reluctant to move forward until everything feels perfect, others may experience that same behavior as indecisiveness or an inability to prioritize.

Or perhaps you believe you’re approachable because you genuinely enjoy helping colleagues. Yet when deadlines become demanding, you become quieter and more focused. Without realizing it, others may interpret your concentration as distance or unavailability.

Neither perspective is necessarily wrong.

They’re simply different.

This difference between how we intend to be perceived and how others actually experience us is what I’ll call the reputation gap.

Every professional has one.

Sometimes the gap is small. Other times, it can quietly influence opportunities, relationships, and advancement without us ever recognizing it.

The goal isn’t to manage every impression or become someone you’re not. That would be impossible—and exhausting. Instead, the goal is to become curious about whether the professional signals you’re sending consistently reflect the reputation you’re trying to build.

This is one reason feedback is so valuable. Trusted colleagues, mentors, supervisors, and collaborators often see patterns that are difficult to recognize from the inside. Their perspectives can help identify strengths worth reinforcing as well as blind spots that may unintentionally shape how others experience your work.

Ultimately, professional reputation isn’t about perfection.

It’s about alignment.

The closer your daily behaviors align with the qualities you want to be known for, the stronger and more consistent your reputation becomes.

Read more

My parents came of age professionally in a very different workplace than the one I occupy today. They built careers when showing up for work quite literally meant showing up. You went to a workplace, worked the hours you were expected to work, and organized much of the rest of your life around those expectations. Technology has changed some of that, of course, but so have our assumptions about where work should happen, how available employees should be, what employers owe their people, and how much of our identities and lives should be organized around our jobs.

At one point this summer, my dad offered a familiar explanation for those changes: “Younger people don’t want to work, and they don’t want to show up.”

I’ve heard some version of that argument plenty of times before. You probably have too. Sentiments such as younger workers lack work ethic; they don’t want to come into the office; they expect too much flexibility; they communicate differently; they aren’t sufficiently loyal; they want to advance too quickly. Depending on who is making the observation, the specifics change, but the diagnosis is usually the same: this is a generational problem.

But as I listened to my dad, I kept thinking about the assumptions buried in the words "work" and "show up".

What does it actually mean to show up for work? Does it mean occupying a particular chair from 9 to 5? Being available when your boss expects you to be? Producing excellent work on schedule? Answering an email at 8 p.m.? Taking initiative without being asked? Attending the office holiday party? Staying with the same organization for ten years? Putting work ahead of personal plans when the two collide?

The answers aren’t nearly as universal as we sometimes pretend they are.

And that is why I increasingly wonder whether we have overdiagnosed the generational problem at work, even as someone who has empirically studied the multigenerational workforce for over a decade.

There are certainly differences among people of different ages and cohorts, and dismissing all of those differences would be no more useful than exaggerating them. But research on generations in the workplace has repeatedly complicated the neat categories we use to explain professional behavior. Age, career stage, historical period, organizational context, and individual experience can all become tangled with what we casually call a “generational difference.”

Perhaps, then, some of what we keep describing as a generational problem is actually an expectations problem.

People enter the workplace with assumptions about what commitment should look like, how professionalism should be demonstrated, how colleagues should communicate, what employees owe their organizations, what organizations owe their employees, and how ambition should be expressed. Those expectations are shaped by far more than the year someone was born. But because our own expectations tend to feel normal to us, we rarely recognize them as expectations at all. We experience them the way work is supposed to be.

That becomes consequential when we start using those expectations to interpret other people’s behavior.

Someone who doesn’t want to spend five days a week in an office may be interpreted as someone who doesn’t want to work. Someone who expects employees to be physically present may be interpreted as a micromanager or controlling. A colleague’s preferred communication style can be taken as evidence that they are unprofessional, inaccessible, demanding, disengaged, or incapable of communicating well. No argument has to occur. Nobody even has to acknowledge that something is wrong. We can simply observe a behavior, evaluate it against our own expectations, and decide what it tells us about the person performing it.

Then, all too often, we attach a generation to the explanation.

The more useful question may be, “What did I expect to see, and why did I expect to see it?”

Subscribe now

The Generational Explanation Is Convenient But Incomplete.

There is a reason we reach so quickly for generational explanations. They are easy.

If a 25-year-old employee and a 55-year-old manager approach work differently, generation gives us an immediately available explanation. One is Gen Z. The other is Gen X. We already have an entire cultural vocabulary for what each of those labels is supposedly supposed to mean, so we can fill in the rest of the story without asking many more questions.

The problem is that the research has never been nearly as tidy as the stereotypes.

For years, researchers have struggled to determine whether differences attributed to generations are actually the result of generation at all. Age matters. So does career stage. Historical circumstances matter. So do organizational context, occupation, family responsibilities, economic conditions, and the technologies available when and where people work. Because many of these influences occur simultaneously, separating a true generational effect from everything surrounding it is extraordinarily difficult.

Consider something as simple as what people want from their jobs. A 25-year-old and a 45-year-old may prioritize different things, but that does not necessarily mean we have discovered something important about Gen Z and Millennials. The 45-year-old may have a mortgage, children, twenty years of professional experience, and a salary that has become increasingly important to maintaining a particular life. The 25-year-old may still be determining what kind of career they want. Compare those same two people twenty years from now, and some of their priorities may have changed considerably.

Research supports this more complicated interpretation. Studies attempting to separate generational cohort from age and historical period have found relatively limited evidence that generation itself accounts for the sweeping differences we often assume. In one large analysis of American work values, for example, researchers found historical-period changes to be more consistent than cohort differences, while some priorities shifted with age and life stage. Other research has found substantial similarities across generations in fundamental work values, including the importance of meaningful and interesting work.

None of this means that everyone wants exactly the same thing from work. Clearly, they do not. Nor does it mean that the workplace has remained static while generations of workers simply cycle through it. Today’s professional environment is profoundly different from the one many older workers entered decades ago, and people who begin their careers under different conditions inevitably learn different things about what employment can and should look like.

That distinction matters.

If people who entered the workforce at different times developed different expectations because they encountered different technologies, economic conditions, organizational practices, employment relationships, and cultural norms, then labeling the resulting differences as “generational” may tell us less than we think. The label describes who appears different without necessarily explaining why.

And when we treat the label as the explanation, curiosity tends to stop there.

“Gen Z doesn’t want to come into the office” is a generational story. Asking why an employee believes physical presence is unnecessary for demonstrating commitment is an expectations question. “Older managers don’t understand flexibility” is also a generational story. Asking why a manager associates physical presence with reliability, collaboration, or accountability is an expectations question.

The difference between those questions is not semantic. The first assigns meaning to a category of people. The second asks us to examine the assumptions through which we are interpreting them.

That is a much harder conversation to have, because generational labels allow us to scrutinize other people. Expectations require us to scrutinize ourselves.

The Expectations We Don’t Know We Have

Most of us do not arrive at work each morning consciously carrying around a list of beliefs about what a good employee looks like. We accumulate those beliefs over time.

We learn them from our first jobs and our first managers. We absorb them from colleagues, organizational cultures, professional norms, family members, economic conditions, and the technologies available to us. We notice which behaviors get rewarded and which ones attract criticism. Eventually, those observations become expectations about how professional life works.

The trouble is that once an expectation becomes sufficiently familiar, it stops feeling like an expectation and it starts feeling like a standard.

This helps explain why people can agree on the importance of a professional value while disagreeing considerably about the behavior that demonstrates it. Most people, regardless of age, would probably say that commitment matters. Reliability matters. Good communication matters. Professionalism matters. Accountability matters. The disagreement often begins when we move from naming the value to deciding what it is supposed to look like.

Take commitment. One person may have learned that committed employees are physically present, arrive early, remain accessible, volunteer when something needs to be done, and occasionally allow work to take precedence over personal plans. Those behaviors become signals of commitment because that is what commitment has looked like throughout much of their professional life.

Someone else may define commitment through a different set of signals. They meet deadlines. They produce excellent work. They respond when needed. They take ownership of their responsibilities. They may see little connection between commitment and where they happen to be sitting while doing those things, or whether they remain visibly available beyond the time required to do the job well.

Both people can genuinely value commitment while looking at the other person’s behavior and failing to recognize it.

However, workplace judgments rarely stop at behavior. We interpret what we see. An employee isn’t simply absent from the office; they become less committed. A manager doesn’t simply prefer in-person interaction; they become resistant to change. A colleague doesn’t simply communicate differently; they become unprofessional. A younger employee who asks about advancement becomes entitled. An older employee who expects hierarchy to matter becomes out of touch.

At each step, we have moved further away from what we actually know.

We observed a behavior. We evaluated that behavior against an expectation. Then we interpreted the gap between the two as evidence about someone’s character, motivation, professionalism, or generation.

This is why expectation gaps can matter even when they never become conflicts. In fact, some of the most consequential ones may remain completely unspoken. A manager does not have to tell an employee, “I don’t think you’re committed because you rarely come into the office,” for that belief to influence how the employee is perceived. A younger employee does not have to tell a senior colleague, “I think your communication style is outdated,” for that judgment to affect how much they seek that colleague’s input.

Over time, our private interpretations can become professional reputations.

And once generational affiliation enters the explanation, those interpretations become even easier to maintain because we already have stereotypes available to validate them. We stop seeing one employee who prefers flexibility and start seeing evidence that “Gen Z doesn’t want to show up.” We stop seeing one manager who values face-to-face interaction and start seeing another manager from an older generation who refuses to change.

The generational label gives the interpretation a sense of certainty it may not deserve.

A more useful way to understand what happened is to slow the process down. Beneath many of these judgments is a sequence we rarely examine: we hold a value, develop expectations about how that value should be demonstrated, observe another person’s behavior, and interpret that behavior through the expectations we already hold.

The question, then, is not whether expectations should disappear. They cannot. Workplaces require expectations, and shared standards make collaboration possible. The more important question is whether we can distinguish between an expectation that is genuinely necessary for good work and one that simply reflects the version of professional life we learned to recognize.

Make the Invisible Expectations Visible

For all the attention organizations have devoted to managing a multigenerational workforce, perhaps we have focused too much on understanding generations and not enough on understanding expectations.

There is now an enormous amount of workplace content devoted to explaining what different generations supposedly want. Leaders are encouraged to learn how Gen Z communicates, what Millennials value, how Gen X prefers to be managed, and what keeps Baby Boomers engaged. Some of that information can provide useful context. But it can also encourage us to approach colleagues as representatives of demographic categories before we understand them as individuals working within a particular organizational environment.

Expectations offer a different starting point.

Instead of asking what Gen Z employees want, we can ask what the people on a particular team expect from one another. What does responsiveness mean here? When does physical presence actually matter? How quickly should someone reply to a message? What does good collaboration look like? How much autonomy comes with a particular role? When is availability necessary, and when is it simply customary? What behaviors demonstrate that someone is ready for greater responsibility?

These questions sound mundane compared with sweeping conversations about generational change. They are also considerably more actionable.

If an organization needs employees together in person because particular work genuinely benefits from real-time collaboration, that expectation can be explained. If a manager needs a response within a certain window because other people’s work depends on it, that standard can be communicated. If advancement requires employees to demonstrate particular capabilities, those capabilities can be made visible rather than left for employees to infer from who gets promoted.

The same principle applies in the other direction. Employees bring expectations into organizations too. They may expect flexibility, regular feedback, development opportunities, transparency, autonomy, or a clearer separation between work and the rest of their lives. Those expectations are not automatically reasonable simply because employees hold them, just as a manager’s expectations are not automatically legitimate because they reflect longstanding organizational practice. The point is not that every expectation should be accommodated. The point is that expectations are much easier to evaluate once they have actually been articulated.

This is where many conversations about generations become less useful than conversations about work itself.

“People your age need constant feedback” tells us very little about what someone actually needs to perform well. “I want to know whether I’m meeting expectations before my annual review” gives us something we can discuss.

“Younger employees don’t want to come into the office” turns a workplace decision into a judgment about an entire group of people. “We believe these three activities work better when the team is together, so these are the times we expect people to be here” turns it into an organizational expectation that can be examined, explained, and, if necessary, challenged.

Making expectations explicit does not guarantee that everyone will agree with them. In some cases, greater clarity may reveal genuine incompatibility. An employee may want a level of flexibility a particular job cannot provide. A manager may expect a degree of availability an employee is unwilling to give. An organization may define professional growth differently from the person seeking it.

But disagreement over a clearly articulated expectation is different from haphazardly assigning motives to behavior we do not understand.

It replaces “They don’t care” with “We expect different things,” and that distinction creates room for something generational stereotypes rarely provide: a conversation about whether the expectation itself still makes sense.

Maybe It Was Never Really About Generations

When my dad said that younger people don’t want to work or show up, I knew what he meant. He wasn’t conducting a generational analysis. He was comparing what he sees in today’s workplace with the version of work he learned to recognize over the course of his own career, and from that perspective, some things genuinely do look different.

People work from places that would not have counted as workplaces for much of his career. They communicate through channels that did not exist when he entered the workforce. They may be less willing to accept that professional commitment requires unlimited availability or that loyalty to an employer should take precedence over other priorities. Even the idea of “showing up” has become more complicated, as someone can be fully present in the work without being physically in an office.

Those changes are worth examining. But difference alone does not tell us what the difference means.

That is where generational explanations so often fail us. They encourage us to move too quickly from observation to interpretation. We see behavior that violates an expectation we have learned to associate with good work, and instead of examining the expectation, we explain the behavior by attributing it to the person’s generation.

The result is a workplace filled with judgments that can feel like facts. Younger employees are entitled. Older employees are inflexible. One generation has no loyalty. Another refuses to change. One does not know how to communicate. Another communicates too much. The labels vary, but the underlying habit remains the same: we use generational categories to explain people before we have fully understood what we are actually observing.

Perhaps the more useful work is not learning an increasingly elaborate set of rules for managing five generations. It is becoming more precise in articulating the expectations that shape how we evaluate one another.

The workplace will continue to change. The people entering it will continue to encounter different technologies, economic realities, cultural norms, and employment relationships than the people who came before them. Inevitably, some of those experiences will produce different expectations about what work should be.

The challenge is not to make everyone expect the same things. It is to stop assuming that the expectations we inherited are universal.

Because sometimes the person across from us isn’t less committed, less professional, less ambitious, or less willing to work. They may simply have learned a different way to show it.

You’ve clarified what you want to be known for. You’ve documented your accomplishments. You’ve identified opportunities to become more visible. You’ve begun investing intentionally in your professional ecosystem instead of hoping opportunities simply appear.

Those are all essential foundations for building credibility.

But at some point, visibility alone is no longer enough.

That distinction matters because careers are increasingly shaped not only by the work we produce, but by the ideas we contribute. The professionals who become trusted resources within their organizations and industries rarely do so because they have the loudest voices. They become known for consistently helping others understand problems more clearly, ask better questions, or offer perspectives that move conversations forward.

This is where thought leadership begins.

Unfortunately, it is also where many professionals become uncomfortable.

The phrase thought leadership has developed a reputation of its own. For many people, it brings to mind self-appointed experts, recycled motivational posts, carefully curated personal brands, and people who seem more interested in appearing knowledgeable than contributing anything genuinely useful. It can feel performative rather than substantive.

As a result, many highly capable professionals distance themselves from the concept entirely. They assume thought leadership simply isn’t for them.

That’s a mistake.

Real thought leadership has very little to do with promoting yourself. At its best, it is an act of contribution. It is the consistent practice of sharing ideas that help other people think more clearly, make better decisions, or understand their work in new ways.

That is something every professional can develop.

This week, we’re going to rethink what thought leadership actually is, where meaningful ideas come from, and how you can begin contributing your own perspective without feeling like you have to become an influencer, a public speaker, or the loudest person in the room.

What Thought Leadership Really Is

One reason thought leadership feels so intimidating is that many people assume it requires extraordinary expertise. They imagine that only CEOs, bestselling authors, keynote speakers, or nationally recognized experts have earned the right to contribute ideas publicly.

In reality, thought leadership is much more accessible than that.

At its core, thought leadership is the consistent contribution of ideas that help other people understand something more clearly. Those ideas might challenge a common assumption, connect concepts in a new way, explain a complex issue, or offer a perspective that others had not previously considered. The goal is not to have all the answers. The goal is to move the conversation forward.

Think about the people whose work you regularly seek out. Chances are you don’t follow them simply because of their titles or credentials. You follow them because, time and again, they help you think differently. They notice patterns you overlooked. They explain complicated topics in ways that make sense. They ask questions that encourage you to reconsider your own assumptions. Over time, those consistent contributions earn your attention and your trust.

That is the essence of thought leadership.

Notice what is missing from this definition. It has nothing to do with becoming famous, building a large social media following, or posting every day. It isn’t measured by likes, shares, or follower counts. Those things may accompany thought leadership, but they are not what create it.

Instead, thought leadership is built one contribution at a time.

Every time you share an observation from your work, explain a lesson you’ve learned, connect ideas across disciplines, or help someone see a familiar problem from a different perspective, you are contributing to your professional reputation. Individually, these moments may seem small. Collectively, they become the body of work that others associate with your name.

This is also why thought leadership cannot be manufactured overnight. It is not a campaign or a branding exercise. It is the cumulative result of consistently demonstrating how you think.

Read more

A few years ago, if someone complimented an article you wrote, the exchange was fairly straightforward. They read your work, found value in it, and perhaps shared it with someone else. The conversation centered on the ideas themselves. Readers evaluated the quality of the thinking, the strength of the argument, or the usefulness of the insight. How the article came to exist was rarely part of the discussion.

Today, readers increasingly evaluate not only the work itself, but also how they believe it was created.

For instance, the same article may prompt an entirely different set of questions. Was it written by the author or generated by artificial intelligence? If AI was involved, how much? What platform of AI was used? Did the writer simply edit a draft? Did they use AI to organize their ideas? Or did they rely on it to produce the work from beginning to end?

The conversation is no longer focused exclusively on the final product. Increasingly, it includes the process behind the product.

Whether we welcome that shift or not, it represents an important change in how professional credibility is evaluated. For many knowledge workers, the decisions we make about artificial intelligence are becoming visible signals that others interpret alongside our work. Our AI strategy is no longer simply a productivity decision. Increasingly, it is becoming part of our professional reputation—and part of how others interpret our professional identity.

Ironically, after years of thinking about what makes writing meaningful, many of the conversations I now have about writing aren’t about the ideas at all. They’re about authorship.

AI Use Is Becoming Normal. AI Expectations Are Not.

Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming part of everyday professional life. Employees use it to summarize meetings, brainstorm ideas, organize research, draft emails, analyze data, write code, and edit documents. Organizations are investing heavily in AI tools, universities are developing new policies, and entire industries are trying to determine where these technologies fit within existing standards of quality and ethics.

This isn’t a future trend; it’s a present reality. According to McKinsey’s 2025 State of AI report, 78% of organizations now report using AI in at least one business function, a dramatic increase from just one year earlier. As adoption continues to accelerate, AI is becoming less of a competitive advantage and more of a standard feature of professional work. In many organizations, the conversation has already shifted from Should we use AI? to How should we use it? That distinction matters because while AI adoption has advanced rapidly, our expectations surrounding its appropriate use have not evolved at the same pace.

What has not kept pace with that technological adoption, however, is our shared expectation of what constitutes appropriate use. While organizations are racing to implement AI, professionals are still negotiating where they believe the boundaries should be.

Is using AI to proofread fundamentally different from asking it to draft an article? Does generating an outline preserve authorship? What about rewriting awkward paragraphs? Summarizing research? Developing ideas? There are remarkably few universally accepted answers, despite how quickly these tools have become integrated into professional life.

This uncertainty creates an interesting reputational problem because people are often evaluating the same behavior through very different lenses. One reader may see AI as nothing more than an advanced productivity tool, no different than spellcheck or Grammarly. Another may interpret that same level of assistance as evidence that the author contributed less original thought than the finished work suggests. Most people likely fall somewhere between those two positions, but the boundaries remain highly personal and often unspoken. As a result, professionals are making decisions about AI in an environment where the social norms are still being written.

Emerging research suggests those perceptions matter more than we might assume. Studies have found that people’s trust in AI-assisted work is highly contextual, depending on the nature of the task, the expertise required, and the degree of human judgment they believe remains involved. Other experimental research has produced an even more intriguing finding: people are often unable to reliably distinguish between human-written and AI-assisted writing, yet simply believing that AI played a significant role can influence how they evaluate the quality, authenticity, and trustworthiness of the work. In other words, perceptions about authorship may shape credibility even when those perceptions are not objectively verifiable.

That distinction is what makes this moment so interesting. AI is certainly changing how work gets done, but it is also changing how work gets interpreted. Increasingly, people are evaluating not only the quality of what we produce, but also the process they believe produced it. For professionals whose careers depend on expertise, credibility, and trust, that shift deserves far more attention than the technology itself.

Reputation Has Always Included Process

Although artificial intelligence has introduced a new set of questions, the underlying principle is not new. Professional reputations have never been built solely on outcomes. They have also been shaped by the process people believe produced those outcomes.

Consider the expectations we already place on professionals in other contexts. We expect journalists to verify their sources before publishing a story. We assume researchers conducted their studies ethically and reported their findings honestly. We trust physicians because they follow established standards of care rather than improvising treatments. Even outside of licensed professions, we routinely distinguish between work that appears thoughtful, original, and carefully developed and work that feels rushed, superficial, or derivative. In each case, our confidence extends beyond the finished product. It includes our assumptions about how that product came to exist.

For most of modern professional life, those assumptions remained largely invisible because the process itself was rarely questioned. If an attorney drafted a compelling legal brief or a consultant produced an insightful report, few people paused to wonder whether they had personally written every sentence. We understood that professionals relied on assistants, editors, colleagues, research staff, software, and other tools throughout the creative process. Those forms of collaboration were generally accepted because they supported human expertise rather than replacing it.

Artificial intelligence complicates those assumptions because it occupies a space that feels fundamentally different. Unlike a spellchecker or a research assistant, generative AI can produce ideas, arguments, language, images, and analysis that closely resemble human work. As a result, it becomes much harder for outside observers to know where the technology ends and the individual begins. The final product may appear identical, yet the perceived amount of human judgment behind it can vary dramatically depending on what readers believe happened behind the scenes.

That uncertainty matters because credibility has always depended, at least in part, on confidence in the person behind the work. When we recommend a consultant, hire a designer, cite a scholar, or subscribe to a writer, we are placing trust not only in what they have produced once, but in their ability to produce thoughtful work again. We are investing in their judgment, expertise, and perspective. If those qualities become difficult to distinguish from the capabilities of increasingly sophisticated technology, people naturally begin asking new questions about authorship, originality, and trust.

Seen through that lens, today’s conversations about AI are not simply debates about technology. They are negotiations about professional credibility. We are collectively trying to determine which aspects of human work remain essential, where technological assistance feels appropriate, and how much transparency we expect from the people whose work we choose to trust. Those questions will almost certainly continue evolving, but they already suggest that the process behind our work is becoming more visible—and more consequential—than it has been in decades.

Subscribe now

Why Substack’s Update Matters

That shift may already be influencing the platforms where professional ideas are shared.

Recently, Substack introduced new features designed to increase transparency around AI-generated content. Readers can now use an AI detection tool to estimate whether a post appears to have been written by a human or with the assistance of artificial intelligence. More notably, writers can also publish a “Maker’s Statement” describing how they create their work and the role AI does, or does not, play in their process.

It would be easy to dismiss these updates as simply another platform experiment. After all, AI detection tools remain imperfect, and even their creators acknowledge that they should not be treated as definitive proof of authorship. But focusing on the technology's accuracy misses the more interesting development.

Substack has recognized that readers increasingly care about authorship itself.

For years, readers primarily evaluated what appeared on the page. Now they are beginning to ask questions about how those ideas came together. Did the writer conduct the research? Did they develop the argument themselves? Was AI used to edit awkward sentences or to generate the first draft? Was the technology a collaborator in the creative process or the primary creator?

Whether readers ultimately agree on where those boundaries should be is almost beside the point. The fact that they are asking the questions at all represents a meaningful shift in professional expectations. Transparency about process is becoming part of how trust is established.

In many ways, this reflects a broader movement that extends well beyond Substack. Universities are revising academic integrity policies to address generative AI. Publishers are developing disclosure requirements for AI-assisted manuscripts. Professional associations are issuing guidance about responsible AI use in consulting, law, healthcare, journalism, and other fields where expertise and public trust are central to the profession. Across these very different contexts, the underlying conversation is remarkably consistent: people are trying to determine not simply whether AI was used, but what responsible and credible AI use should look like.

That is why I found the introduction of the Maker’s Statement particularly compelling. Rather than asking writers to defend themselves against accusations of AI use, it invites them to articulate their creative process. It shifts the conversation away from detection and toward transparency. Instead of reducing authorship to a binary question of “human or AI,” it acknowledges that many professionals now work alongside these tools while still maintaining ownership of the thinking, judgment, and expertise that give their work value.

To me, that is a much healthier conversation. Professional credibility has never required people to work in isolation or reject every new tool that becomes available. It has required them to be honest about the source of their expertise and to ensure that the work they put into the world genuinely reflects their own judgment. AI does not eliminate that responsibility. If anything, it makes it more visible.

My AI Strategy Is Really a Reputation Strategy

When Substack introduced the Maker’s Statement, I didn’t see it as another profile field to complete. I saw it as an opportunity to articulate something I had already been thinking about for months.

Like many professionals, I use artificial intelligence in my work. It helps me brainstorm, identify blind spots, organize ideas, and challenge my own thinking. It often accelerates the mechanics of writing, allowing me to spend more time refining an argument rather than staring at a blank page. Used thoughtfully, I believe AI can make good work even better.

But I also believe there is an important distinction between improving the expression of an idea and outsourcing the idea itself.

My reputation is not built on my ability to produce words. It is built on my ability to produce judgment.

People don’t subscribe to this newsletter because I know how to construct a sentence. They subscribe because they trust my perspective on credibility, reputation, ambition, and professional identity. They return because they expect interpretation rather than information. My responsibility is not simply to publish content. It is to contribute original thinking that helps readers make sense of increasingly complex professional challenges.

That responsibility cannot be delegated.

It can certainly be supported. AI can help me research more efficiently, identify alternative viewpoints, improve transitions, tighten language, and pressure-test an argument before I publish it. Those are all valuable contributions.

But the questions that matter most remain mine to answer. Which idea deserves to be explored? What assumptions should be challenged? Which evidence strengthens the argument? What conclusion do I ultimately believe is true? Those decisions define the work far more than the mechanics of drafting a paragraph.

When I wrote my Maker’s Statement, I wanted to make that philosophy explicit.

This newsletter is built on original interpretation. I use AI to support research, organization, editing, and creative exploration, but not to replace independent thought. Every article reflects my own expertise, judgment, and perspective. If my name appears on it, I stand behind both the ideas and the conclusions.

Reading it back now, I realize it isn’t really a statement about artificial intelligence.

It’s a statement about authorship.

To me, authorship has never meant doing every task manually or refusing to adopt new technology. Throughout history, professionals have embraced tools that made them more efficient without diminishing the value of their expertise. The defining characteristic of authorship has always been ownership. The work should ultimately reflect the individual’s thinking, judgment, and values, even if modern tools help bring those ideas to life.

That is the standard I try to hold myself to. If an article bears my name, I want readers to know that the central insight is genuinely mine. AI may help me communicate that insight more clearly, but it never replaces the intellectual work that gives the article a reason to exist in the first place.

The Bigger Picture

Artificial intelligence will continue to evolve, and so will our expectations surrounding it. New tools will emerge. Organizations will establish policies. Industries will gradually develop their own norms around what constitutes appropriate AI use, just as they have done with countless technologies before it. Those standards will undoubtedly vary across professions, audiences, and contexts.

But regardless of where those conversations ultimately land, I suspect one thing will remain true.

Professional credibility has never been determined solely by the quality of what we produce. It has also been shaped by the confidence others have in the person who produced it. Expertise, judgment, integrity, and originality have always been part of the equation, even if they were often assumed rather than explicitly discussed.

Artificial intelligence has made those assumptions more visible.

For perhaps the first time, many professionals are being asked to think intentionally about where their own expertise ends and technological assistance begins. That isn’t necessarily a problem to solve. It is an opportunity to become more deliberate about the kind of professional reputation we want to build.

The question is no longer simply, “Do you use AI?” Increasingly, that answer will be “yes” for most professionals.

The more interesting questions are these: How do you use it? Where do you draw the line? What remains uniquely yours?

Those answers will likely become part of how colleagues, clients, employers, students, and audiences evaluate not only the work we produce, but the professionals we choose to become.

In that sense, your AI strategy is not merely a workflow decision or a productivity decision. It is a reputation decision, and perhaps that is the most significant shift of all.

For years, we have focused on managing the outputs that shape our professional reputations: the articles we publish, the presentations we deliver, the ideas we share, and the work we produce. Increasingly, however, people are paying attention to the process behind those outputs as well.

Technology will continue to change.

Trust, however, remains remarkably consistent.

At the end of the day, people are not placing their confidence in software. They are placing it in people. AI may help us work faster, communicate more clearly, or think more expansively, but it cannot replace the judgment, perspective, and integrity that make someone worth trusting in the first place, and in an era where those qualities are becoming more visible—not less—that may be our greatest competitive advantage.

At this point, it’s natural to begin asking a different question.

When does all of this actually pay off?

The answer is both simpler and more complex than most people expect.

Many professionals imagine opportunities as isolated events. A recruiter sends a message on LinkedIn. A conference organizer reaches out with a speaking invitation. A publisher expresses interest in a book proposal. A prospective client appears in your inbox. From the outside, these moments often look sudden, almost as though they emerged by chance.

In reality, they rarely begin there.

Most meaningful opportunities have been quietly developing long before anyone makes contact. The person who reaches out may have encountered your work months earlier. They may have attended one of your presentations, read an article you published, heard your name from a trusted colleague, or followed your professional journey over time. Every interaction, no matter how small it seemed in the moment, became another piece of evidence that you were someone worth remembering.

This is one of the most important shifts in how we think about professional success. Opportunities are rarely spontaneous rewards for recent effort. More often, they are the visible result of invisible work that has been accumulating over weeks, months, or even years.

That invisible work takes many forms. It is reflected in the relationships you consistently nurture, the ideas you repeatedly contribute, the reputation you intentionally cultivate, and the expertise you demonstrate long before anyone asks for it. Every article you publish, every thoughtful conversation you participate in, every presentation you deliver, and every meaningful connection you build strengthens the foundation upon which future opportunities are created.

Seen through this lens, the goal is no longer to spend your career chasing opportunities as they appear. Instead, the goal is to become the kind of professional who has already earned consideration before the opportunity ever exists.

Opportunity Creates Opportunity

One of the biggest misconceptions about professional success is that opportunities are endpoints. We celebrate the new job, the conference invitation, the board appointment, the book contract, or the media interview as though the work is complete once the opportunity arrives. In reality, meaningful opportunities rarely represent the end of a process. More often, they mark the beginning of the next one.

The professionals who seem to experience continuous career momentum understand this intuitively. They recognize that every opportunity carries value beyond the immediate outcome. A keynote presentation introduces them to future conference organizers. A published article becomes evidence of expertise that supports future media interviews. A successful consulting engagement generates referrals, testimonials, and case studies that make the next client easier to secure. Rather than treating each opportunity as an isolated achievement, they view it as an asset that can continue creating value long after the original experience ends.

This perspective requires a fundamental shift in thinking. Instead of asking, “How can I get this opportunity?” begin asking, “How can this opportunity create the next one?” The question changes your focus from immediate success to long-term momentum. It encourages you to think beyond the project itself and consider how every experience can strengthen your reputation, expand your network, generate new ideas, or provide evidence of your expertise.

Viewed this way, opportunities become less like rewards and more like investments. The return isn’t measured only by what happens today, but by what becomes possible tomorrow.

Read more

It doesn’t end for reasons like a lack of motivation or because they stop believing in the value of sharing their expertise, or because they suddenly become too busy.

Most people stop sharing content because they convince themselves they have nothing left to say, or that they have already said everything. 

Sometimes, the excitement of publishing something new is followed by panic or self-doubt sounding like: “what do I write about next?!”

As the pressure to say visible grows, so does the fear of becoming repetitive and turning people away from you instead of bringing them in. If you’ve already written about leadership, networking, AI, or personal branding, how many more ways can you possibly say the same thing? But the answer is simpler - you don’t.

The goal of creating content is not to constantly invent new ideas. It is to help people consistently recognize the ideas and thoughts that are already yours.

This is where many professionals misunderstand consistency. They equate consistency with frequency, believing success belongs to those who publish the most often. Others believe consistency means endlessly producing new topics so they never bore their audience. But neither is true because consistency is not about creating endless novelty; it’s about creating recognition.

Take a second to think about the professionals you admire, both online and offline. Chances are, you can summarize what they are known for in a single sentence. They may approach that topic from dozens of different angles, tell different stories, respond to current events, or introduce new research, but the underlying themes remain remarkably consistent. This is how you become memorable.

Recognition is built through repetition of ideas, not the mere repetition of words.

Your audience doesn’t need to hear the same message every week. They do, however, need repeated opportunities to understand what you stand for, what problems you solve, and how you think. Therefore, every article, LinkedIn post, keynote, podcast appearance, or conversation becomes another piece of evidence that reinforces your professional identity.

Read more

It’s a bit exhausting, but I understand both sides. As a college professor and consultant, I don’t have any set work hours. My schedule looks different every semester and then I have the summers “off,” so my routine (or lack thereof) is always changing.

At any given time, there are usually a lot of different projects happening in my life. In the same week, I might be teaching classes, reviewing research, working on book chapters, creating content, meeting with clients, grading assignments, preparing a presentation, and somehow still trying to maintain an actual life outside of work.

I think it creates the impression that there must be a very sophisticated system holding everything together. People probably imagine carefully planned days, a perfectly optimized calendar, a consistent routine, and a very Type A person who enjoys organizing every detail.

Believe it or not, I’m not Type A at all and I do not have a complicated productivity system. I do not wake up every day at the exact same time. I do not schedule every hour of my calendar. I do not have a carefully crafted morning routine that requires 12 steps before I can start working.

That surprises people because we often confuse being productive with being highly regimented. We assume the people who complete a lot of work must be the people with the most rigid systems.

But I have found the opposite to be true for me.

My productivity does not come from controlling every moment of my life. It comes from understanding how I actually work and building enough structure around that reality.

There is a difference between structure and rigidity. I have a lot of structure. I have very little rigidity.

So, I thought I’d share the productivity rules I actually do not follow.

Rule #1 I Don’t Follow: Start Every Day the Exact Same Way

There is an entire corner of productivity culture built around the idea of the perfect morning routine in order to be successful and/or for high achievers.

Wake up early. Drink water. Exercise. Meditate. Journal. Read. Complete your carefully designed sequence of habits before the rest of the world starts moving.

And if that works for someone, genuinely, that is great.

It just does not work for me.

Unless I have an early morning commitment, I almost never wake up to an alarm. I know this is a luxury and not everyone has this kind of schedule flexibility, but it is also one of the benefits of designing a career where much of my work is based around deliverables rather than being physically present somewhere from 9-5.

Some mornings I wake up earlier. Some mornings I sleep later. It depends on my workload, my energy, my schedule, and honestly, what I did the night before.

But that does not mean I start every morning from scratch. I have three non-negotiables.

I walk my dog. I drink my lemon water. I have my coffee.

That’s it.

Those three things are enough to signal that my day has started without requiring me to pretend every day is going to look exactly the same.

Some days I savor every sip. Other days I’m drinking my coffee in the car (team no lid). Sometimes I’m watching the news in the morning, other days I’m playing music. I start some mornings on my couch, sometimes I get back in bed, and other days begin in my home office.

After that, I look at the day in front of me. Some days, I know I need to immediately jump into writing because I have a big deadline approaching. Other days, I know the morning needs to be used for smaller tasks because I have meetings breaking up the afternoon.

For me, the point is not creating a perfect day, but rather understanding the day that actually exists.

Consistency has never come from making every day identical. It comes from having enough anchors that I can adapt without feeling scattered.

Rule #2 I Don’t Follow: A Full Calendar Means You’re Productive

This might be one of my strongest opinions about work: I do not think a completely full calendar is a sign that someone is managing their time well.

In fact, for the kind of work I do, it usually creates the opposite problem.

Writing a book chapter or research manuscript, analyzing research, developing a presentation, or thinking strategically about a client problem requires space. It requires the ability to sit with something long enough to make meaningful progress.

Those things rarely happen in random 30-minute openings between meetings. So whenever possible, I try to protect one weekday with nothing scheduled.

No meetings.

No appointments.

No calls.

Not even personal appointments.

The purpose of that day changes depending on the week.

Sometimes that is the day I write thousands of words because I have finally created enough uninterrupted space to think deeply. Sometimes it is the day I catch up on everything that fell behind while I was focused on work. I clean my house. I run errands. I organize things. I handle the random life tasks that somehow create so much mental clutter. And sometimes, I need that day to do almost nothing.

That used to feel unproductive to me. Now, I recognize it is part of why I can sustain everything else.

I want to have energy to see friends on the weekend. I want to enjoy my life. I want to come back to work with ideas instead of constantly feeling like I am recovering from my own schedule.

Leaving space is not the opposite of productivity. For me, it is one of the reasons productivity happens.

Rule #3 I Don’t Follow: Keep Everything in Your Head

Even though my daily schedule is flexible, my larger systems are not.

This is probably the biggest misconception about how I work. Because I do not have a rigid daily routine, people might assume I am just figuring everything out as I go.

I am definitely not.

I can be flexible because I have systems that prevent everything from living in my brain at the same time.

At any given moment, there are usually projects happening on very different timelines. Some things need to be finished today. Some things need to be finished this month. Some things are ideas that might not become something real for another year.

Those cannot all occupy the same mental space.

Subscribe now

I use Trello to organize larger projects because I need somewhere to capture all of the moving pieces. A book manuscript, for example, has dozens of small steps before it becomes a finished product. Research projects move through different phases. Client work has deliverables, deadlines, and follow-up items.

If I tried to mentally carry all of those details, I would spend more energy remembering my work than actually doing my work.

But I also still love a regular to-do list.

Sometimes my lists are very organized and strategic. Sometimes they are simply a brain dump of everything floating around my mind because I need to see it somewhere other than inside my own head.

I think there is a lot of power in separating planning from execution.

When everything feels overwhelming, the problem is not always that there is too much to do. Sometimes, the problem is that everything has been given equal importance because it is all competing for attention at the same time.

Writing something down forces me to distinguish between what exists, what matters, and what actually needs action right now.

The goal is not to organize every detail of my life but instead to create enough clarity that I can actually move forward.

Rule #4 I Don’t Follow: Multitask to Get More Done

This is probably the biggest difference between how my work looks from the outside and how it actually happens, and I’m going to do a dedicated post another time about multitasking.

I usually have a lot of projects happening simultaneously, but I almost never work on them simultaneously.

Those are very different things.

During the same season of my life, I might be writing a book, preparing a class, working with consulting clients, creating content, reviewing research, and managing personal responsibilities.

But during the same hour?

Almost never.

When I am writing, I write.

When I am grading, I grade.

When I am creating, I create.

When I am working on a client project, I focus on that client project.

I know this is not always possible and much like the fact I wake up without an alarm, the naysayers will say this is too much of a luxury for them to ever implement. There are jobs and seasons of life where interruptions are unavoidable and where people do not have full control over their schedules.

But whenever I can control my attention, I protect it, because I have learned that the hardest part of many projects is not the actual work.

It is repeatedly restarting.

Every time I leave something unfinished, there is a cost to coming back. I have to remember where I was, what I was thinking, what decision I was trying to make, or what problem I was trying to solve.

Sometimes stopping and returning is unavoidable, but whenever possible, I would rather create enough space to finish.

This is one of the reasons I care so much about protecting larger blocks of time. I am not trying to create a perfectly optimized schedule. I am trying to create enough uninterrupted attention and energy to actually complete meaningful work, because being busy and making progress are not always the same thing.

Rule #5 I Don’t Follow: Push Through No Matter What

A lot of my work is mood-based.

I realize that probably sounds like the least productive thing someone could say, but don’t forget, I’m not Type A.

I do not mean that I only work when I feel motivated.

I mean I have spent enough time paying attention to my own patterns that I understand different types of work require different kinds of energy.

Writing from scratch is different from editing.

Strategic thinking is different from answering emails.

Creating something new is different than organizing something that already exists.

There are times when I can immediately tell that forcing myself into a certain type of work is going to create unnecessary friction. I might spend two hours struggling through something that I could complete easily the next morning when my brain is in a different place.

So, when my schedule allows, I move things around.

If I am in a creative mindset, I try to use it.

If I am in an organizational mindset, I use that.

If I have a lower-energy day, I might handle the smaller things that still need to get done.

That does not mean waiting until everything feels easy.

It means recognizing that not all work requires the same version of us.

Over time, I have realized the systems that help me most are rarely the ones that look impressive from the outside.

They are actually pretty simple:

Create enough structure to know what matters.

Leave enough flexibility to adapt.

Protect enough attention to finish.

And understand yourself well enough to know what actually works.

For me, productivity will never be about building a lift that looks perfectly optimized or systems that can be shared and sold on social media. It’s supposed to help us build a life where the things that matter actually get done without draining us.

Mention LinkedIn, Substack, Instagram, or even writing an article for your professional association, and you’ll hear many of the same reactions.

“I don’t have anything interesting to say.”

“Everything has already been said.”

“I don’t want to post all the time.”

“I don’t want people to think I’m constantly promoting myself.”

“I’m just not a content person.”

If any of those thoughts have crossed your mind, you’re not alone. In fact, I hear some version of them almost every time I speak about personal branding or professional visibility.

The problem, however, isn’t usually a lack of expertise.

It’s a misunderstanding of what creating content is actually supposed to accomplish.

Many professionals assume that creating content is primarily a marketing activity. They picture influencers chasing algorithms, posting every day, manufacturing hot takes, or documenting every detail of their lives in an effort to capture attention.

If that’s your definition of content creation, I completely understand why you wouldn’t want any part of it.

But that’s not the kind of content we’re talking about.

Throughout Credibility Capital, we’ve explored the idea that opportunities are often influenced by what other people know—or don’t know—about us. You’ve clarified your professional identity, evaluated your reputation, refined your positioning, strengthened your message, expanded your professional ecosystem, and thought strategically about where your visibility should exist.

Now we arrive at the natural next question:

How do you stay visible over time?

My answer is surprisingly simple.

You document your expertise.

Notice that I didn’t say you become an influencer. I didn’t say you post every day, and I definitely didn’t say you share every opinion that crosses your mind.

Instead, I want you to think about content in an entirely different way.

Content is not primarily a marketing activity.

It’s a credibility activity.

Its purpose isn’t to convince people you’re knowledgeable. Its purpose is to provide visible evidence of the knowledge you already have. It allows people who may never work directly with you to understand how you think, what problems you solve, what questions you ask, and what perspective you bring to your profession.

In other words, thoughtful content makes invisible expertise visible.

That’s an important distinction because expertise that remains hidden is difficult for other people to recognize, remember, or recommend.

You may be exceptionally good at what you do, but if the only people who ever experience your expertise are the handful of individuals who work directly with you each day, you’ve unintentionally limited the reach of your professional reputation.

Creating thoughtful content expands that reach.

Not through self-promotion, but through evidence.

The goal is to become more visible for the right reasons.

Stop Thinking Like a Content Creator

One of the biggest mindset shifts I hope you’ll make after this lesson is to stop asking yourself:

“What should I post today?”

That’s an intimidating question because it assumes your job is to constantly invent something new.

A much better question is:

“What am I already doing that other people could learn from?”

That subtle shift changes everything.

You’re no longer trying to manufacture content.

You’re documenting your expertise.

Think about your own week.

How many questions did you answer?

How many conversations required you to explain a process, clarify a misunderstanding, solve a problem, recommend a resource, or share an experience that someone else found helpful?

Those moments are easy to dismiss because they feel ordinary to you.

But they’re only ordinary because they’re your expertise.

What feels routine to you may be genuinely valuable to someone else.

I’ve found that many professionals dramatically underestimate how much knowledge they share naturally every day. They assume expertise only counts when it’s groundbreaking or highly technical. In reality, some of the most valuable professional content simply helps someone else understand a problem more clearly than they did before.

That’s exactly what credibility looks like in practice.

You don’t have to invent expertise.

You simply have to recognize it.

Your Best Content Already Exists

If you’ve been working through the first six weeks of Credibility Capital, here’s the good news:

You are not starting from scratch.

In fact, you’ve already completed much of the thinking required to create thoughtful, credibility-building content. You just may not have recognized it yet.

Over the past several weeks, you’ve clarified what you want to be known for, evaluated your reputation, refined your positioning, strengthened your professional message, intentionally increased your visibility, and expanded your professional ecosystem. Those exercises weren’t simply about helping you think more strategically about your career. They also laid the foundation for what you’ll continue sharing with the people around you.

This is one of the biggest misconceptions about creating content. People often assume they need to invent something completely new every time they sit down to write a LinkedIn post, record a video, or publish an article.

They don’t.

More often than not, the best professional content is simply a visible extension of the work you’re already doing.

Read more

They begin when leaders stop being curious.

Not curious about industry trends, competitors, or the next strategic initiative. Curious about the people they’re leading.

At first glance, that may seem like a surprisingly simple explanation. After all, curiosity rarely appears at the top of leadership competency models. We talk about communication far more often than curiosity. We celebrate decisive, charismatic, and visionary leaders. We praise leaders who can motivate teams and drive results. Curiosity, by comparison, feels secondary.

But I don’t think it is. In fact, I think curiosity is what makes many of those other leadership qualities possible.

Leaders who remain genuinely curious ask better questions. They listen more carefully. They resist making quick assumptions. They continue learning about the people around them instead of assuming they already know them. Over time, that curiosity gives them something many leaders gradually lose: an accurate understanding of the individuals they’re trying to lead.

That understanding matters more than we often realize because you can’t bring out the best in someone you don’t understand.

Curiosity Comes Before Communication

If you asked people to name the most important leadership skill, I suspect many would say communication. It’s difficult to argue with that (I’m a communication scholar). Leaders spend an enormous amount of time communicating: setting expectations, giving feedback, navigating conflict, celebrating wins, and helping people make sense of change.

But I think we sometimes mistake communication for the starting point.

Communication isn’t where great leadership begins. Curiosity is.

Consider one of the qualities we hear praised most often in leadership: being a good listener. It’s unquestionably important. Yet I don’t think listening is the skill we should admire most. Listening happens naturally when someone is genuinely curious.

There’s a meaningful difference between listening because you’re expected to and listening because you truly want to understand another person. The first can become little more than a leadership performance. A manager schedules regular one-on-one meetings, asks, “How are things going?” and checks the box. The conversation happens because it’s supposed to happen.

Curious leaders approach those same conversations differently. They ask questions they don’t already know the answer to. They notice when someone’s behavior changes. They wonder why a normally engaged employee has become quiet, why one team member thrives under autonomy while another needs more collaboration, or why someone’s enthusiasm suddenly seems to disappear. Most importantly, they remain open to having their assumptions challenged by what they learn.

That distinction matters because leadership is ultimately a human endeavor. You can’t effectively communicate with people if you’ve stopped trying to understand them. The quality of your communication is limited by the quality of your understanding, and curiosity is what keeps that understanding current.

The best leaders I’ve encountered don’t assume they have their people figured out. They recognize that people change. Priorities shift. Circumstances evolve. Motivations deepen. Curiosity isn’t something they practice during onboarding and then abandon once they think they know their team. It’s an ongoing discipline of paying attention, asking questions, and allowing new information to reshape their perspective.

Communication may be one of leadership’s most visible skills, but curiosity is what gives it substance.

Subscribe now

You Can’t Bring Out the Best in People You Don’t Understand

One of the questions leaders ask most often is, “How do I motivate my team?”

It’s a reasonable question, but I think it contains a flawed assumption. It suggests there’s a universal formula for motivation—as though every employee, student, volunteer, or colleague is inspired by the same things.

They aren’t.

Some people are energized by autonomy. Others crave collaboration. Some are motivated by public recognition, while others would rather receive a quiet note of appreciation. One person may be driven by opportunities to learn, another by stability, another by purpose, and another by the challenge of solving increasingly complex problems.

The point isn’t to memorize a catalog of motivational styles. It’s about recognizing that effective leadership begins with discovering what matters to the people in front of you, rather than assuming they’re motivated by what matters to you.

Curious leaders make that discovery a priority.

They ask about people’s goals instead of assuming they know them. They notice which kinds of work generate energy and which drain it. They pay attention when someone’s priorities shift after a major life event, a promotion, a setback, or simply a different season of life. They understand that motivation isn’t fixed, and neither are the people they lead.

Incurious leaders often do the opposite. They rely on old assumptions, broad generalizations, or their own preferences as a blueprint for everyone else. They offer the same incentives to every employee. They communicate the same way with every team member, or perhaps don’t communicate at all. They mistake consistency for fairness without recognizing that treating everyone identically isn’t the same as helping everyone succeed.

Over time, that difference becomes significant.

People rarely do their best work when they feel misunderstood. They become disengaged when their strengths go unnoticed, frustrated when their motivations are overlooked, and discouraged when leaders repeatedly respond to the person they think they’re leading instead of the person actually standing in front of them.

Curiosity doesn’t guarantee that every leadership decision will be the right one. But it dramatically increases the likelihood that those decisions will be grounded in reality rather than assumption, which is often the difference between managing people’s work and developing their potential.

When Curiosity Disappears, Assumptions Take Its Place

Perhaps the greatest danger of losing curiosity is that it rarely feels like you’ve lost anything at all.

Most leaders don’t wake up one morning and decide they no longer care about the people they lead. More often, they become busy. They gain experience. They grow confident in their judgment. Gradually, without realizing it, they begin replacing questions with conclusions.

“I know how she works.”
“I know what motivates him.”
“I know why they reacted that way.”

Sometimes they’re right. Often they’re only partially right.

The problem isn’t that experienced leaders develop instincts. Good instincts are valuable. The problem arises when those instincts replace genuine curiosity instead of working alongside it. Every assumption we make about another person is based on information that is, at best, incomplete and, at worst, outdated.

People change.

Their goals evolve. Their confidence fluctuates. Their personal lives influence their professional ones. New opportunities emerge. Challenges that were invisible yesterday become impossible to ignore today. A leader who assumes they already understand someone eventually stops noticing those changes.

When that happens, assumptions begin filling the space that curiosity once occupied.

A team member who has become unusually quiet is labeled as disengaged rather than overwhelmed. Someone who pushes back on an idea is viewed as difficult rather than as invested enough to raise concerns. A decline in performance is often interpreted as laziness rather than burnout, uncertainty, or a problem the employee doesn’t yet know how to solve.

Of course, sometimes those initial judgments are accurate. But effective leaders don’t confuse an interpretation with a fact. They remain curious long enough to find out.

That may be the simplest way to distinguish management from leadership. Managers often react to behavior. Leaders try to understand what produced the behavior in the first place.

Curiosity slows judgment just long enough to make better decisions, and better decisions almost always lead to better leadership.

Share

Leadership Is a Practice Before It’s a Position

One of the reasons I care so much about curiosity is that I don’t think leadership begins the day someone is promoted into management.

It begins much earlier.

Leadership begins the moment another person starts looking to you for guidance, support, encouragement, or direction. Sometimes that happens because of a title. Often it doesn’t.

You may be mentoring a new employee, supervising a student worker, leading a project team, coaching youth sports, serving on a nonprofit board, or simply becoming the colleague others naturally seek out for advice. In each of those situations, your ability to positively influence someone else’s experience depends on how well you understand the person in front of you.

That’s why curiosity matters far beyond formal leadership roles.

Every one of us has opportunities to shape another person’s confidence, growth, and success. We can encourage someone to take on a challenge they didn’t think they were ready for. We can recognize strengths they haven’t yet seen in themselves. We can help someone navigate a setback or celebrate a meaningful accomplishment. But none of those moments happen particularly well if we haven’t taken the time to learn who that person is, what they value, and what they’re working toward.

Too often, we think of leadership as the ability to provide answers.

I’ve come to think of it differently.

Leadership is the willingness to keep learning about people, even after you think you know them.

That mindset changes the questions we ask. Instead of assuming someone needs advice, we become curious about what kind of support would actually be helpful. Instead of defaulting to our own experiences, we take the time to understand theirs. Instead of leading from certainty, we lead from a place of continual learning.

Ironically, that doesn’t make leaders appear less confident. It makes them more trustworthy.

People are remarkably perceptive. They know when they’re being managed, and they know when they’re being understood. The leaders they remember most are rarely the ones who always had the right answers. They’re the ones who made people feel seen, heard, and capable of becoming something more than they believed was possible.

The Question Every Leader Should Keep Asking

The longer I work with organizations, teach students, and observe leaders across different industries, the more convinced I become that leadership has less to do with having the right answers than asking the right questions.

Not because questions are inherently powerful, but because they reveal something even more important: a willingness to acknowledge that another person is always more complex than our assumptions about them.

That’s what curiosity protects.

It protects us from assuming that a single performance review tells us everything we need to know about an employee. That one difficult conversation defines a colleague. That one season of disengagement tells the whole story of someone’s commitment, ambition, or potential.

People continue to grow, struggle, change, and surprise us throughout their careers. Effective leaders recognize that understanding another person isn’t something you accomplish once. It’s something you continually earn.

So the next time you’re frustrated by someone’s behavior or disappointed by their performance, resist the urge to immediately explain it.

Instead, pause long enough to ask yourself a different question:

That single question may not solve every leadership challenge you face. But it will keep you from making one of the most common mistakes leaders make: believing that your first interpretation is the complete story.

I think the leaders who consistently bring out the best in others aren’t simply better communicators, strategists, or decision-makers. They’re better students of people, and they never stop learning.

That exercise was an important first step because before you can become more intentional about your visibility, you first need to understand where you’re already showing up.

But visibility alone isn’t the goal.

Many professionals think about their careers as a collection of separate activities. They update their LinkedIn profile, attend a conference, join a professional association, volunteer for a committee, publish an article, or speak at an event. Each activity feels like another item checked off a professional development list.

The people around you, however, don’t experience your career that way.

They experience the overall impression those activities create.

A colleague may discover you through LinkedIn, then notice that you’re presenting at an industry conference. A potential employer may read one of your articles before visiting your profile. A client may hear you speak on a panel, then subscribe to your newsletter. Each interaction builds upon the last, reinforcing, or sometimes contradicting, the impression you’ve already created.

This is why professional visibility is about much more than simply showing up in more places. Every professional touchpoint contributes to a larger story about who you are, what you do, and why someone should trust your expertise.

This week, we’ll shift our perspective from individual visibility activities to the broader system they create. You’ll begin thinking about your career not as a checklist of disconnected accomplishments, but as a professional ecosystem where each part has the potential to strengthen the others. When that ecosystem is intentional and aligned, every new opportunity reinforces the credibility you’ve already worked to build.

Your Career Is an Ecosystem, Not a Checklist

When people think about building their professional brand, they often focus on accumulating accomplishments. They want to attend another conference, publish another article, join another association, or expand their network. While each of these activities can be valuable, they are often pursued independently, with little consideration for how they fit together.

This “checklist mentality” is understandable. Professional development is frequently presented as a series of boxes to check: update your LinkedIn profile, attend networking events, volunteer for leadership positions, build a website, post more content. The underlying assumption is that the more boxes you check, the stronger your professional brand becomes.

In reality, that’s rarely how credibility is built.

Credibility is cumulative. People don’t evaluate you based on a single interaction or accomplishment. Instead, they gradually form an impression as they encounter you in different contexts over time. Every presentation, conversation, publication, recommendation, committee meeting, social media post, and conference introduction becomes another piece of evidence that shapes how they understand your professional identity.

That’s why it’s helpful to think of your career as an ecosystem rather than a checklist.

An ecosystem is a collection of connected parts that influence and strengthen one another. Remove one piece, and the system still functions. Strengthen one piece and the entire system often becomes stronger. The same is true of your professional presence. A conference presentation may lead someone to your LinkedIn profile. Your LinkedIn profile may encourage them to read an article you’ve written. That article may lead to a speaking invitation, a collaboration, or a consulting opportunity. None of those touchpoints exist in isolation. They work together to reinforce your credibility.

This is an important shift in perspective. The goal isn’t simply to participate in more professional activities. The goal is to create a network of professional experiences that collectively tell a consistent story about who you are and the expertise you bring.

When you begin thinking this way, you stop asking, “What should I do next?” and start asking a more strategic question:

“How does this strengthen the professional ecosystem I’m building?”

Answering that question begins with understanding what separates a strong professional ecosystem from one that’s simply busy.

Read more

That work matters because credibility doesn’t happen by accident. It is built through deliberate choices about what you contribute, how you communicate, and what you consistently become known for. Before you can create opportunities, you first need a clear professional identity that others can recognize and trust.

This month, however, we’re shifting our focus.

Last month was about developing your message. This month is about ensuring that message reaches the people who can create opportunities.

Those are two very different challenges.

Clarity without visibility limits opportunity. Visibility without clarity creates confusion. Sustainable career growth requires both.

Many professionals assume visibility is simply about being seen. They think if more people know who they are, more opportunities will naturally follow.

But not all visibility is equally valuable.

Being visible to thousands of people who will never hire you, recommend you, collaborate with you, or introduce you to new opportunities is very different from being visible to a much smaller group of people who can directly influence your career.

That’s where today’s concept begins.

Notice that this definition says nothing about follower counts, going viral, or posting every day. Opportunity Visibility isn’t about attracting attention for attention’s sake. It’s about intentionally increasing your visibility within the professional environments where meaningful decisions are made.

In many ways, Opportunity Visibility is the bridge between the work we’ve done over the past month and the work we’ll do throughout the rest of this Intensive. You’ve already begun building credibility. Now it’s time to ensure that credibility reaches the people who can actually act on it.

Understanding Where Visibility Actually Matters

If visibility creates opportunities, an obvious question follows:

Where does visibility actually matter?

Most professionals never stop to ask that question.

Instead, they try to become visible everywhere. They join every platform, attend every networking event, post constantly on social media, and feel guilty whenever they aren’t “putting themselves out there.”

The assumption is simple: more visibility must be better.

In reality, strategic visibility is almost always more valuable than universal visibility.

Every profession has places where opportunities naturally circulate. Those places might include professional associations, conferences, alumni networks, industry publications, internal leadership meetings, online communities, or long-standing professional relationships. Although they look different from one profession to another, they all serve a similar purpose: they’re environments where people exchange ideas, identify expertise, solve problems, recommend colleagues, and create opportunities.

Think about your own career for a moment.

Where did your last meaningful opportunity come from?

Was it a former colleague who thought of you when a position opened? A conference organizer who had seen you present? A client who had followed your work for months before reaching out? A faculty member who recommended your name? An editor who was already familiar with your research?

The opportunity itself may have seemed to appear suddenly, but its origins almost certainly began much earlier.

Most opportunities don’t emerge from strangers discovering your résumé.

They emerge because someone encountered your expertise before the opportunity existed.

Read more

“AI is only as good as your prompts.”

There’s certainly some truth to that. Learning how to communicate effectively with AI matters, and strong prompting can dramatically improve the quality of its output.

But I don’t think prompts are the real differentiator.

I think AI is only as good as your thinking.

At first, that distinction might seem semantic. It isn’t.

Anyone can learn prompt engineering. Tutorials, templates, and AI-generated prompts are becoming increasingly accessible, and they’ll only become more commonplace over time. As they do, prompting will gradually become another expected digital skill rather than a meaningful competitive advantage.

Thinking follows a very different trajectory.

The ability to ask insightful questions, recognize weak assumptions, connect seemingly unrelated ideas, identify missing context, and exercise sound judgment isn’t developed through better prompting. It’s developed through years of learning, experience, observation, and intellectual curiosity. In other words, it is built long before you ever open an AI application.

That’s why I think we’ve been asking the wrong question.

Every time a new AI model is released, the conversation seems to follow the same script. Articles warn that entire professions are about to disappear. Social media fills with predictions about which jobs are “safe” and which skills are becoming obsolete. Professionals rush to learn the newest platform, convinced that staying ahead of the technology is the key to protecting their careers.

I understand the instinct. Technological change has always created uncertainty, and AI is advancing at an extraordinary pace.

But if your goal is to AI-proof your career, I think the more important question is:

That question leads to a very different answer than most people expect because the widespread adoption of AI isn’t reducing the value of expertise; it’s increasing it.

The Great Equalizer

One of the defining characteristics of every transformative technology is that it eventually becomes ordinary. The internet was once a competitive advantage. Then it became infrastructure. Smartphones were once a differentiator. Today they’re simply expected. Search engines revolutionized access to information, but no one builds a career today by claiming they know how to use Google.

The advantage never remained in possessing the technology. It shifted to what people could do with it.

AI is following the same trajectory.

Right now, simply knowing how to use Claude, ChatGPT, or another AI platform still feels like a marketable skill in many organizations. That window won’t stay open for long. As AI becomes embedded into the software we already use and digital fluency continues to spread, basic AI competency will become less of a differentiator and more of an expectation.

When everyone has access to the same tools, the tools themselves no longer create meaningful distinctions.

That’s the paradox many people miss. They assume that because AI can produce more work, expertise becomes less valuable. In reality, the opposite is beginning to happen. As access to powerful technology becomes increasingly equalized, the source of competitive advantage shifts away from the technology and back to the individual using it.

In other words, whether you use AI has already become irrelevant and expected.

Now, you need to demonstrate what you contribute that AI cannot provide on its own.

Subscribe now

AI Raises the Floor. It Doesn’t Raise the Ceiling.

One of the biggest misconceptions about artificial intelligence is that it reduces the importance of expertise. At first glance, that conclusion seems reasonable. If AI can draft reports, generate marketing campaigns, summarize research, write code, and answer complex questions in seconds, why would anyone spend years mastering a discipline?

The answer is that AI changes where expertise creates value rather than eliminating the need for it.

For decades, professional success often depended on possessing specialized knowledge that wasn’t easily accessible. If you knew how to analyze a dataset, write a compelling proposal, interpret legal language, or structure a strategic communication plan, your expertise created a significant advantage because relatively few people possessed those capabilities.

AI has changed that equation.

Today, someone with limited experience can produce work that appears polished, articulate, and well-organized. A proposal can be generated in minutes. A presentation can be assembled in an afternoon. A first draft that once required hours of effort can now appear almost instantly. The barrier to producing competent work has fallen dramatically, and that is genuinely transformative.

But there is an important distinction between producing work and evaluating it.

AI can generate ten strategic recommendations. It cannot independently determine which recommendation best fits your organization’s culture, stakeholder relationships, competitive environment, budget constraints, or long-term objectives.

It can produce multiple interpretations of a dataset, but it cannot decide which interpretation is most persuasive without someone who understands the context surrounding the data.

It can summarize research findings, but it cannot replace the years of reading, observation, and experience that allow an expert to recognize what the research means, where its limitations lie, and how it connects to broader patterns within a field.

In other words, AI is extraordinarily good at producing possibilities.

Professionals create judgment.

That distinction matters because judgment has always been the highest-value contribution in knowledge work. Organizations rarely pay senior leaders because they type faster than everyone else. They pay them because they recognize patterns earlier, anticipate unintended consequences, weigh competing priorities, and make sound decisions when the correct path is uncertain. Those abilities emerge from accumulated experience, repeated exposure to complex situations, intellectual curiosity, and a deep understanding of a domain. They cannot be downloaded, automated, or acquired through better prompting alone.

Ironically, AI makes this reality even more visible. When competent production becomes faster, cheaper, and widely available, production itself becomes less scarce. The scarce resource shifts to interpretation, discernment, and judgment. In economic terms, abundance changes what is valuable. When nearly everyone can generate a polished first draft, the professionals who stand out are the ones who know what should be changed, what should be questioned, what should be discarded, and what should never have been generated in the first place.

This is why I often disagree when people say that AI is only as good as your prompts.

Good prompts are rarely the product of clever wording. They are the product of deep understanding. They come from knowing enough about a problem to ask meaningful questions, recognize weak assumptions, identify missing context, and challenge answers that sound convincing but ultimately miss the point.

That kind of thinking has never been produced by technology.

It has always been produced by people who invested the time to become genuinely knowledgeable.

Share

Your Competitive Advantage Was Never the Tool

Whenever I hear people talk about AI-proofing their careers, one piece of advice almost always appears: Develop an authentic voice because AI can never replicate it.

I agree with the sentiment, but I think it understates the real opportunity.

Voice is important, but voice is ultimately an expression of something much deeper.

Your perspective.

Perspective is the product of accumulated expertise. It is formed by the books you’ve read, the conversations you’ve had, the mistakes you’ve made, the organizations you’ve worked in, the problems you’ve solved, and the patterns you’ve learned to recognize over time. It is the mental framework you use to decide what matters, what doesn’t, and how seemingly unrelated ideas connect.

That is why two experts can look at the same information and reach entirely different conclusions.

Give two experienced leaders the same employee engagement survey, and one may conclude the organization has a communication problem, while the other may see a leadership problem.

When two marketing professionals have the same campaign metrics, one may focus on audience segmentation, while the other immediately notices a credibility issue.

Present two researchers with the same dataset, and each may identify a different theoretical implication worth exploring.

The information is identical.

The interpretation is not.

That difference isn’t created by AI. It’s created by experience.

This is also why I believe the professionals who will benefit most from AI are not necessarily those who know the most prompts or experiment with every new platform. They are the people who have invested deeply enough in their fields that AI becomes an extension of their thinking rather than a substitute for it. They recognize weak arguments because they’ve spent years evaluating strong ones. They notice missing context because they’ve encountered similar situations before. They know when an answer is insightful, when it’s incomplete, and when it’s confidently incorrect because they have developed the expertise necessary to make those distinctions.

In many ways, AI amplifies what already exists. If your foundation is shallow, AI may help you produce more work, but it cannot compensate for the absence of understanding. If your foundation is deep, however, AI becomes remarkably powerful because it allows you to spend less time producing and more time thinking, refining, connecting ideas, and exercising judgment.

That’s why I don’t believe the safest careers will belong to the people who become the fastest users of AI.

I believe they will belong to the people whose expertise gives AI something meaningful to amplify.

Technology can accelerate your work.

It cannot accumulate your experience, develop your judgment, or build the perspective that ultimately makes your work worth listening to.

The Best Investment You Can Make

Every transformative technology changes the mechanics of work, but very few change the fundamentals.

Artificial intelligence is changing how we create, communicate, analyze, and solve problems. It is not changing what ultimately makes professionals valuable.

The professionals who will thrive over the next decade will almost certainly use AI. But their advantage won’t come from knowing one more prompt than everyone else. It will come from bringing something to the technology that cannot be downloaded: expertise, judgment, perspective, and credibility built over years rather than generated in seconds.

That’s why I think the best investment you can make right now isn’t simply learning another AI platform.

It’s becoming the kind of person whose thinking improves whatever technology exists.

Since AI can generate the first draft, your value no longer comes from producing the first draft. It comes from knowing whether the draft is any good.

So if you’re wondering how to AI-proof your career, I’d start asking:

What do I know, understand, and see that allows me to use AI better than everyone else?

Once everyone has access to the same technology, the technology is no longer what sets you apart.

You are.

In Week 1, we explored visibility and identified where recognition may be breaking down. In Week 2, we examined reputation and considered how others are likely experiencing us. Last week, we focused on positioning and identified the gap between our current reputation and the one we want to build.

This week, we’re bringing those ideas together.

More specifically, we’re focusing on your core message and the talking points that support it.

At first glance, messaging can seem like a relatively simple topic. Most professionals spend years talking about their work. We introduce ourselves in meetings, update LinkedIn profiles, write bios, attend conferences, participate in interviews, and explain what we do to colleagues, clients, students, friends, and strangers.

Yet despite all of that practice, many people still struggle to articulate their value clearly and consistently.

Part of the challenge is that expertise and communication are not the same thing.

The more experience we accumulate, the more complicated our stories become. Careers rarely move in a straight line. We accumulate responsibilities, pursue new interests, develop additional expertise, take on leadership opportunities, and sometimes move in directions that would have been difficult to predict earlier in our careers.

Over time, many of us become difficult to summarize.

Ironically, that is often a sign of growth.

The problem is that while our careers become more complex, other people’s attention does not.

Research on impression formation suggests that people rely heavily on patterns, themes, and mental shortcuts when making sense of others. Rather than remembering every detail we share, they tend to retain a small number of associations that help them organize information efficiently. In professional settings, this means people are rarely carrying around a complete record of our accomplishments. Instead, they are carrying around a summary of what they believe we do, what we represent, and why we matter.

If people cannot quickly understand what you contribute, they will create their own explanation.

Sometimes that explanation is accurate.
Sometimes it reflects an earlier version of you.
Sometimes it focuses on the most visible aspect of your work rather than the most important one.

Either way, the story moves forward with or without your participation.

That is why messaging matters.

Most of us are not trying to deliver the perfect introduction.

We are trying to ensure that the people around us understand, remember, and accurately communicate the work we do.

Most People Share Their Job Instead of Their Contribution

When people are asked to describe themselves professionally, many default to employment facts.

They share a title.
An employer.
A department.
A rank.
A list of responsibilities.

The information is often accurate, but accuracy and clarity are not always the same thing.

Consider how often you’ve met someone who spent several minutes explaining where they work, what their title is, how long they’ve been there, and what their responsibilities include. By the end of the conversation, you may know quite a bit about their employment situation, yet have very little understanding of what they actually contribute or who they are.

This happens because titles describe roles.

They do not necessarily describe values or people.

A title tells us where someone sits within an organization. A core message helps us understand the larger idea that connects their work.

That distinction becomes increasingly important as careers become less linear.

Someone may spend a decade teaching before becoming a consultant. A manager may become an entrepreneur. An engineer may become an executive. A journalist may become a strategist. A researcher may become a founder.

The role changes.

The underlying contribution may not.

Someone may be a professor, consultant, author, researcher, mentor, and speaker throughout different stages of life. Those activities may appear unrelated on the surface, but they may all be connected by a deeper contribution: helping people understand, solve, build, or navigate something more effectively.

This is why a core message should not be limited to your current title or place of employment.

Your job is part of your life, but it is not the entirety of your professional identity.

For many people, a career is connected to purpose, expertise, values, service, creativity, leadership, and ambition. The goal is not to communicate every aspect of yourself simultaneously. The goal is to identify the thread that connects the parts of yourself you most want others to understand.

Think of it as the difference between a résumé and a narrative.

A résumé tells people what you have done.

A core message helps them understand what it all means.

Why Messaging Requires Maintenance

One of the biggest misconceptions about messaging is that it is something we do once.

In reality, messaging is maintenance.

As our careers evolve, our stories evolve with them. Unquestionably, the message that served you five years ago does not serve you today.

In fact, one reason positioning drift occurs is that people continue to tell old stories long after their work has changed.

This can happen unconsciously and inadvertently. Someone continues using an outdated bio because it is already written. Someone keeps introducing themselves through an old area of expertise because it feels familiar. Someone continues to accept opportunities related to an earlier version of their work because those opportunities remain available.

Before long, the message becomes outdated not because the person stopped growing, but because the language stopped growing with them.

For that reason, I do not think of messaging as a branding exercise.

I think of it as a periodic recalibration process to ensure that the story people hear accurately reflects the value you currently provide and the direction you are intentionally moving.

Read more

I was living in a small town, far away from my family and longtime friends. My coworkers had become my primary social circle. They knew what was happening in my personal life. They checked in on me. They listened when I needed support. In many ways, they felt like friends.

So when my therapist told me that work friends aren’t real friends, I was offended, and broke one of my cardinal rules by thinking I was the exception to the norm.

His statement felt cynical, dismissive, and flat-out wrong.

Some of the most important relationships in our lives begin at work. We meet spouses, business partners, mentors, and lifelong friends through our careers. Many of the people standing beside us during our hardest moments were once colleagues.

It took me years to understand what he actually meant.

Meaningful relationships can emerge from the workplace. The issue, however, is that we are often far too quick to call someone a friend simply because they are close to us.

At work, proximity creates familiarity, which creates comfort, which then creates the illusion of trust. Before long, we begin assigning friendship status to people who have never actually been tested outside the environment that brought us together.

That distinction matters far more than most professionals realize.

Proximity Is Doing All The Work

One of the most reliable findings in social psychology is the mere exposure effect. The concept is deceptively simple: people tend to develop more positive feelings toward individuals they encounter repeatedly.

The more we see someone, the more familiar they become. The more familiar they become, the more comfortable we feel around them.

Workplaces are proximity machines.

We spend forty or more hours each week with the same people. We navigate deadlines together. We complain about organizational decisions. We celebrate promotions, birthdays, and project completions. We accumulate hundreds of small interactions that create a powerful sense of familiarity.

Over time, familiarity begins to feel like trust.

The challenge is that trust and familiarity are not the same thing.

Friendship requires evidence. It is built through loyalty, discretion, consistency, and mutual investment over time. Familiarity requires only exposure.

Many workplace relationships feel deeper than they actually are because proximity and exposure are doing much of the work.

The Workplace Was Never Designed for Friendship

This is where many discussions about workplace relationships go off the rails.

The issue is not whether colleagues can become friends. Of course they can, and there are a lot of benefits to having friends at work.

The issue is that workplaces operate according to a different set of rules than friendships do.

Friendships are built around mutual care. Organizations are built around goals, performance, hierarchy, and resource allocation. Even the healthiest workplaces contain promotions, evaluations, leadership decisions, organizational politics, and competing interests.

As a result, workplace relationships exist within a system that can place people in changing and sometimes conflicting roles.

Today’s peer becomes tomorrow’s supervisor. A trusted teammate becomes a candidate for the same opportunity. A close colleague joins a leadership team and suddenly possesses information they cannot share.

None of this makes people dishonest. Nor does it mean workplace relationships are inauthentic.

It simply means that friendship and organizational life are operating according to different logics.

When we forget that, we begin expecting workplace relationships to provide forms of loyalty they were never designed to sustain.

Women Are Often Rewarded for Collapsing the Boundary

I think this dynamic is particularly important for women, and I can say with a lot of certainty that I don’t think my therapist would have given the same advice to a man.

Research consistently shows that women engage in greater relational maintenance and self-disclosure than men. From an early age, many women are socialized to build connections through conversation, emotional support, and openness. We create closeness by sharing. In many contexts, these tendencies are tremendous strengths. They help us build communities, strengthen teams, navigate conflict, and develop meaningful relationships.

Yet the same behaviors that strengthen relationships can also accelerate them.

A colleague becomes a confidant. A teammate becomes a sounding board. A workplace friend becomes someone with access to our frustrations, insecurities, ambitions, and unfinished thoughts. The progression often feels natural because the relationship feels close.

What often goes unexamined is whether the relationship has actually earned that level of access.

The irony is that many of the behaviors women are encouraged to demonstrate at work, like openness, vulnerability, emotional intelligence, and relationship-building, can later become the lenses through which they are scrutinized.

Share

This is what makes workplace disclosure more complicated than many people acknowledge. The issue is not whether women should build relationships or seek support from others. The issue is recognizing that closeness, trust, loyalty, and friendship are not interchangeable concepts.

Comfort is not the same thing as trust. Frequency is not the same thing as loyalty, and proximity is not the same thing as friendship.

Friendship Is Built on Disclosure. So Is Reputation.

One reason workplace friendships develop so quickly is that they often follow the same pattern as friendships outside of work. According to Social Penetration Theory, relationships deepen through self-disclosure.

As people reveal increasingly personal information about themselves, they move from surface-level interactions to more meaningful and intimate connections. We share frustrations, aspirations, insecurities, experiences, and opinions, and in doing so, we create the trust and closeness that characterize friendship.

In most discussions of workplace relationships, this process is treated as an unquestioned good. Greater disclosure leads to stronger relationships, stronger relationships lead to greater trust, and greater trust creates a more supportive work environment.

What receives far less attention is the fact that disclosure does more than strengthen relationships. It also shapes perception.

The information we share becomes part of the framework through which other people understand us. Colleagues do not simply learn new facts when we disclose something personal; they incorporate those facts into a broader story about who we are, how we think, and what we are capable of. Over time, those interpretations become part of our professional identities.

Let’s revisit my opening vignette about my own coworkers during my divorce. I told them everything because I trusted them and needed support, and they were simply there. This led to isolation and bullying at work when they didn’t understand or agree with my choices. Suddenly, opportunities for collaboration were gone, casual conversation ceased, and snap judgments about every move I made were steadily rising.

When our colleagues know very little about our personal lives, our work tends to be evaluated largely on its own merits. A missed deadline is a missed deadline. A quiet meeting is a quiet meeting. A mistake is simply a mistake.

Once people possess additional information, however, those same behaviors often acquire new meaning.

The missed deadline is no longer viewed as an isolated incident; it becomes evidence that someone is distracted by personal problems. A quiet meeting becomes a sign that they are struggling. An ordinary mistake becomes confirmation that their judgment is being affected by circumstances outside of work.

Nothing about the work itself has changed.

What has changed is the lens through which the work is being interpreted.

This is where disclosure becomes more consequential than many people realize. The information we share does not simply strengthen relationships. It also provides context that others use to understand, explain, and evaluate our behavior. In many cases, that context becomes more influential than the behavior itself. Once people believe they understand why we are acting a certain way, they often stop evaluating the action independently.

That is how personal information becomes professional information.

Not Everyone Is A Friend

When I look back on that period of my life, I can see that my therapist was right, although not in the way I initially understood.

The issue was never whether my coworkers cared about me. Many of them did.

The issue was that I had mistaken closeness for friendship. I assumed that because these people knew intimate details of my life, they occupied the same category as the friends who had known me for years. I assumed that because they offered support, they would respond to difficult decisions with loyalty. I assumed that because they were present during one of the hardest periods of my life, they had earned the same level of trust as people whose relationships with me existed entirely outside of work.

Looking back, I had never really stopped to ask a simple question:

That is not because my coworkers were bad people. Nor is it because the relationships were meaningless. Many of them were incredibly important to me.

Work friends are not real friends because friendship is not determined by proximity. It is determined by what remains when proximity disappears.

As our careers progress, we spend enormous amounts of time learning how to build relationships. Far less time is spent learning how to understand them. Yet the distinction may matter more. Not every meaningful relationship is a friendship, not every friendship deserves the same level of access, and not every person who feels close to us occupies the same role in our lives. Professional maturity requires recognizing the difference.

P.S. One of the reasons I wanted to write this essay is because it touches on many of the same themes we’re exploring in Credibility Capital: The Intensive. Reputation isn’t built solely through performance. It’s shaped through communication, relationships, visibility, and the stories people tell about us.

If you’re interested in becoming more intentional about how you’re known at work, paid subscribers receive access to the full summer intensive, including all previous modules and upcoming lessons on positioning, credibility, visibility, and opportunity.

In Week 1, we examined visibility and identified where recognition may be breaking down. In Week 2, we turned our attention to reputation and explored how others are likely experiencing us, and whether those perceptions fully align with how we see ourselves.

This week, we’re moving from diagnosis to design.

More specifically, we’re going to focus on positioning.

Positioning is one of those terms that gets used frequently but is defined inconsistently. In some circles, it is treated as a marketing concept. In others, it is discussed as a form of personal branding. Still others reduce it to a LinkedIn headline or elevator pitch.

I think of positioning more simply.

Positioning is what comes to mind when people think about you.

It is the answer to questions like:

What is this person known for?
What expertise do they bring?
What kinds of problems do they solve?
Why would someone seek them out?

These questions matter because opportunities rarely emerge from a complete understanding of who we are. Most people do not know us well enough for that. Instead, opportunities emerge from the associations people hold about us, and those associations are often surprisingly narrow.

Most People Are Historically Positioned

One of the biggest misconceptions about professional positioning is that it is something we consciously create.

In reality, most people are positioned by history.

They become known for the projects they accepted, the roles they held, the expertise they developed, and the problems they solved repeatedly over time.

The process is often so gradual that it goes unnoticed.

A manager becomes known as an operational expert because they consistently step in when things need fixing.

A professor becomes known for a particular area of research because that was the topic of their dissertation.

A consultant becomes associated with one service because it was the first thing clients hired them to do.

None of these outcomes is necessarily intentional. They are simply the result of repetition. Over time, repetition becomes association. Association becomes reputation, and reputation becomes positioning.

The challenge is that professional goals evolve much faster than positioning does.

Many people discover that they are still known for something they no longer want to be known for.

Others realize they have developed expertise in an entirely new area, but the market continues to associate them with older work.

Still others find themselves trapped by positive reputations that no longer reflect their ambitions.

Being known as dependable, helpful, collaborative, or responsive may build trust, but it does not necessarily lead to advancement.

At some point, most professionals encounter a difficult question:

Is my current positioning helping me move toward the opportunities I want, or keeping me tied to opportunities I’ve already outgrown?

Positioning Drift

I think of this challenge as positioning drift.

Positioning drift occurs when the reputation you’ve accumulated no longer aligns with the direction you’re trying to move.

This can happen because your interests change, your expertise expands, your career evolves, or because others simply haven’t updated their understanding of who you are.

The problem could be that people don’t know you, or that they know an earlier version of you.

If the latter is the one driving referrals, introductions, invitations, and opportunities, then your future may continue to be shaped by your past.

This is why positioning deserves intentional attention. Without it, careers often become a collection of opportunities rather than a progression toward a desired destination.

Read more

How do you get so much done?

It’s a fair question that I’m asked at least once a week, but it’s built on an assumption that I don’t think is entirely correct. Most people assume productivity is primarily a function of discipline, motivation, or time management. If someone consistently moves projects forward, publishes articles, meets deadlines, or juggles multiple responsibilities, there must be a system behind it.

While systems certainly help (I’ll share mine in an upcoming post), I’ve become increasingly convinced that something else is at work.

Momentum.

More specifically, the feeling that follows completion.

Over the past several months, I’ve noticed the same pattern repeatedly. Whenever I finish something that has occupied a lot of my attention (including but not limited to: writing revisions, scheduling appointments, packing for a trip, a household chore, or even a workout), I get an indescribable high.

The task itself may be large or small, but what remains surprisingly consistent is the feeling that follows.

Rather than feeling depleted, I often feel energized. Instead of wanting to stop, I want to do more and keep working. One completed task somehow makes the next task feel more manageable.

At first glance, this seems counterintuitive. Completing work should consume energy. Yet many of us experience the opposite. Finishing something often creates energy.

Let’s break down why.

Open Loops Are More Expensive Than We Realize

One of the defining characteristics of modern work is that very little of it feels complete.

There is always another email to answer, another document to review, another project to revise, another meeting to schedule, another decision to make. Even when we leave work for the day, much of that unfinished business follows us home, and we have more open loops in our personal lives.

Psychologists have long recognized a phenomenon known as the Zeigarnik Effect, which suggests that unfinished tasks remain more cognitively accessible than completed ones. Most discussions of this finding focus on memory. I think attention is the more interesting implication.

Unfinished tasks do not merely exist on a to-do list. They occupy mental space.

A big project isn’t just present when you’re actively working on it. It remains present while you’re answering unrelated emails, sitting in meetings, making dinner, or trying to enjoy a quiet evening. The same is true of the doctor’s appointment you need to schedule, the difficult conversation you’ve been postponing, or the decision you’ve been avoiding because you’re not sure which option is best.

The task itself may require an hour. The carrying can last weeks or longer.

Those are not the same thing.

A single unfinished task creates very little burden. 10 create background noise, and 30 create a level of cognitive friction that is difficult to identify but impossible to ignore.

Over time, that friction begins to shape how we feel. We describe ourselves as overwhelmed, exhausted, distracted, or unmotivated without recognizing that a portion of those feelings may stem from the sheer number of open loops competing for our attention.

Before we can understand why finishing something feels so good, we have to understand the hidden cost of leaving things unfinished.

Why Finishing Feels Better Than It Should

If open loops consume attention, then completion returns that attention to us.

At first glance, this seems like a simple explanation for why finishing a task feels satisfying. Yet it doesn’t fully explain the phenomenon. After all, not all completed tasks are equally important. Finishing a major project that required months of effort should feel dramatically different than finally scheduling a dentist appointment you’ve been postponing.

Yet both often produce a surprisingly similar emotional response.

That observation suggests that the feeling associated with completion may not be rooted primarily in achievement.

Instead, I think it is rooted in closure.

We tend to talk about finishing things in terms of accomplishment. We celebrate milestones, goals, promotions, publications, graduations, and launches. But many of the most satisfying moments of completion involve tasks that no reasonable person would consider achievements at all.

Subscribe now

Nobody proudly announces that they finally submitted an expense report.
Nobody frames scheduling an oil change as a personal triumph.

Yet both can create an immediate sense of relief.

The common denominator is not significance. It is resolution.

Something that was unfinished becomes finished. Something uncertain becomes settled. Something that required attention stops demanding it.

This may explain why people often describe feeling lighter after completing a task. We rarely say we feel more accomplished. More often, we say we feel as though something has been lifted, removed, or taken off our plate. Those expressions suggest that unfinished obligations function as a psychological weight. We become accustomed to carrying them and stop noticing they are there until the moment they disappear.

The finishing high, then, may have less to do with achievement than with relief.

When Relief Becomes Momentum

The most interesting part of the finishing high is what happens next.

If the story ended with relief, finishing a task would simply return us to baseline. We would close the loop, experience a brief sense of resolution, and move on.

But that isn’t how many people experience completion.

The person who finally cleans out a cluttered closet often finds themselves reorganizing an entire room. The writer who submits a manuscript begins outlining the next article. The professional who finally responds to a backlog of emails starts tackling projects that have been sitting untouched for weeks.

Completion creates movement.

This pattern challenges one of the most common assumptions about motivation. We tend to believe motivation precedes action. First, we become motivated, then we make progress.

In practice, the sequence is often reversed.

Research by Teresa Amabile and Steven Kramer found that perceived progress is one of the strongest drivers of motivation in knowledge work. People become more engaged when they can see evidence that their efforts are producing results. Progress is not simply the outcome of motivation; it is one of its sources.

That insight helps explain why the finishing high feels so powerful.

Completion creates evidence.

A task that previously occupied space in the future has now entered the past. An unresolved obligation has become a resolved one. Something that existed only as a source of pressure has become proof of progress.

For someone feeling stuck, that shift matters.

This is why finishing one thing often creates the desire to finish another.

The task itself is not generating energy. The completion is changing how we interpret our own effectiveness.

The unfinished task represented uncertainty.

The completed task represents capability, and capability is far more motivating than inspiration.

A Different Way to Get Unstuck

This is one reason I have become increasingly skeptical of advice that treats motivation as something we must generate before taking action.

Many people spend an enormous amount of time searching for motivation. They consume podcasts, buy planners, redesign routines, and wait for the feeling of readiness to arrive. The underlying assumption is that once motivation appears, progress will naturally follow.

But what if motivation is sometimes the result rather than the cause?

What if the fastest path to momentum is not inspiration, but completion?

The next time you find yourself feeling overwhelmed, stuck, or strangely unmotivated, it may be worth asking a different question.

Not: How do I get motivated?

Instead: What loop can I close?

What decision have you been postponing? What task is ninety percent complete? What obligation has occupied far more mental space than it deserves?

The answer may not be glamorous. It may not even be particularly important.

But finishing it might do more than remove one item from a list.

It might create the relief, evidence, and momentum necessary to tackle everything that comes next.

The older I get, the less interested I become in productivity for productivity’s sake. What fascinates me instead is momentum: how it starts, why it disappears, and what allows it to return.

The best explanation I’ve found so far is surprisingly simple.

We spend a great deal of time looking for motivation when what we really need is closure.

Sometimes the energy we’re searching for isn’t hiding in a new system, a better habit, or a more inspiring goal. Sometimes it’s waiting on the other side of something we’ve already started.