Have you ever noticed how speaking up about what’s broken in an organization can slowly change how you’re seen, not because you are wrong, but because you are saying it before people are ready to hear it? What begins as an attempt to act like an owner, to protect the long-term health of the organization, can quietly turn into a reputation issue. You are no longer just someone raising concerns. You are “that person.” The one who sees too much. The one who speaks too much.

What amuses me is how thin that line really is. Stay quiet for too long and you risk being seen as checked out, as someone who doesn’t really care, or worse, a “yes-man”.

Speak up too often and suddenly you are no longer heard the way you were.

Commitment starts to sound like negativity. Caring starts to look like complaining.

We often say we want leaders who think like owners and speak their mind. Owners versus renters, we say. But in practice, that honesty is usually welcome only in small doses, and sometimes when it fits into what the organization is already comfortable hearing. If you don’t point out where culture or structure is quietly breaking down, you might be seen as someone who doesn’t have a complete view of the organization. But if you do point it out, there’s a good chance you could be seen as negative, or as someone pushing a personal agenda, even when you are genuinely trying to help and offering real ways forward.

I have also learned that a lot depends on who you are talking to. Not every leader naturally looks at organizations through a design lens. If someone hasn’t spent time building organizations, structural misalignments can feel trivial to them. In the same way, if you raise revenue concerns with a leader who mainly looks inward, they may struggle to see what you are worried about. It’s not always resistance. Sometimes it’s just different ways of seeing the organization.

I also have to admit that I’ve been on the other side of this. I’ve caught myself doing the same thing, quietly labeling someone as “too focused on problems,” especially when the timing felt off or the message was hard to deal with. Not because they were wrong, but because really engaging with it would have meant slowing down, or changing course when it felt easier to just keep moving. I don’t think that makes us bad leaders. Okay, maybe it does. But more often than not, I think it just makes us human.

I wish I could say I’ve figured out a perfect way to know when to speak up, what to say, how to say it, and who to say it to. I haven’t. What I usually do instead is say something, watch how it is received, and adjust. I pay attention to whether the response is curious or defensive. Over time, you start to sense what the organization, or your leadership, can deal with, and what it’s just not ready to hear yet.

What weighs on me most isn’t my own uncertainty. It’s how often I’ve seen good leaders pay a price for trying to fix organizational problems. People who genuinely cared and wanted to belong. People who weren’t trying to score points or had an agenda. They spoke up because they believed in the company and ended up paying for it. That feels deeply unfair and, honestly, a bit sad.

I wish it wasn’t this hard to care out loud.

Organizations should be able to have uncomfortable conversations without turning the person raising them into the problem. Until that happens, speaking up will keep feeling like a credibility risk.

Maybe leadership, is learning how to live with that risk. How to speak clearly without making yourself the problem. How to keep caring even when it might cost you your credibility. And maybe wisdom isn’t about knowing exactly when to speak, but about sensing how much truth the moment, and the person across the table, can really take.

And if they prove, over and over again, that they are not ready to hear the truth, then exiting, unfortunately, is an option. Hopefully, that opens the door to finding a tribe that can hear both the positive and the negative without judging you too harshly.

Lead Better

Subscribe to get essays that go beyond surface-level tactics and challenge how you think about engineering leadership, building teams, and leading with intention.

Subscribe now

Some of the most successful people I’ve known work with their heads down. Not because they lack ambition, but they anchor their attention to the work itself.

If you watch closely, you will notice they don’t organize their work lives around the usual markers of success: status, money, prestige or validation. It doesn’t mean they don’t care about success, they just refuse to chase its symbols.

Instead, they invest in something slower and less visible in the moment, but something that shines like a lighthouse over time: mastery. And paradoxically, they end up with many of these markers of success without ever chasing them in the first place.

We are taught that success at work requires managing perception, narrative, or optics. We go through the motions of learning how to manage up, down, and in every conceivable direction. Don’t get me wrong, these skills aren’t useless. They have their place and they often matter. But when they become the actual work, we lose the patience required for mastery, and the deep satisfaction that comes from making something well.

So when I’m asked to offer guidance to younger folks entering the corporate world, it is usually this: devote yourself to the craft. Look for those micro doses of “high” that come with doing real work away from the spotlight. Resist the urge to turn effort into theater. There will be environments that will push you to participate in the performance. Stick with the work anyways. And if you stay with the work long enough, something becomes clear: attention is finite, and where you place it, substance or style, quietly shapes who you become.

Recognition, then, has a way of arriving on its own. Not as an objective, but as a consequence. In time, the work (always) speaks. And the people who are meant to hear it (always) do. They follow the signal of your (great) work and in doing so, become your tribe.

Lead Better

Subscribe to get essays that go beyond surface-level tactics and challenge how you think about engineering leadership, building teams, and leading with intention.

Subscribe now

War memorials are paradoxical. They are symbols of remembrance that stand in serenity and symmetry for memorializing wars that were anything but.

If war was all screams and horrifying brutal deaths, why do we remember it through stillness and serenity?

Perhaps because peace is the only way we can bear to look back. We can’t live in a perpetual replay of horror, so we translate pain into form, and form into meaning. That’s how the painful memory of war survives without destroying us.

But what strikes me is that we build monuments to war to reflect on loss: of life, of economy, of spirit, of what we held dear.

Yet we build nothing equivalent for organizational struggle.

We have no rituals for honoring failed projects. Bad hires that shredded the organizational culture. No record of the restructurings that broke people and put the company in a downward spiral. No annual gathering where we remember what was lost…and what we held special at one time. When something difficult happens (a layoff, a strategic pivot that kills years of work, losing your biggest client) we hold one retrospective. People ask questions. They take notes. Then it disappears. Forever. In the corporate black hole where emails generally go to die.

Business culture has decided that remembrance is inefficient. We debrief once and move forward.

And yet. I find myself questioning if this forgetting is a feature or a bug.

Subscribe now

There is a wise saying by Heraclitus, that no man steps in the same river twice. It’s not the same river, and it’s not the same man anymore.

Organizations are rivers too, you see.

The company five years from now won’t be the same company: different people, different leadership, different challenges. Why burden them with old wounds?

And yet, I feel that some moments for an organization are too important to simply flow past. I was at the awe-inspiring India Gate in New Delhi when this became somewhat evident to me. What struck me most were the names. Thousands of them, each one carved into stone. For eternity. Not “13,313 soldiers died” as a statistic, but individual names. Individual lives. Someone took the effort to inscribe each one. It was moving to say the least.

War memorials like India Gate suggest that some things are too important to forget. That memory requires physical space, and permanence so that people return to see what was lost, in the hope of never repeating it.

But what rises to that level in the life of an organization?

Losing one of the biggest customers? The people who lived it know the effort to grow that relationship, and irreparable financial setback that followed after losing the client. But five years later, new employees won’t know and perhaps don’t need to. The organization has moved on. Should it really carry that weight?

Mass layoffs from misreading the market? The people who were let go remember. The ones who stayed remember. But preserving that pain: does it create accountability or just resentment? Does it build wisdom or trap people in old grievances?

I don’t know.

What I do know is that there is a cost to remembering and a cost to forgetting, and we have somehow chosen forgetting. Almost by default.

When we forget, we lose the nugget of wisdom embedded in failure. We lose institutional knowledge. We lose the trust that comes from honest acknowledgment.

But when we remember with the kind of permanence that war memorials stand for, we perhaps risk other things. We risk becoming a culture that can’t move forward, that rehashes old battles, that makes new people feel like outsiders to a history they didn’t live. We risk using memory as a weapon rather than wisdom.

So I’m left grappling with this predicament: What in organizational life is worth memorializing, and what should we let the river carry away?

I genuinely don’t know what that looks like in practice. But I know the cost of never asking the question.

Lead Better

If you’re tired of leadership advice that chases only metrics, subscribe to get essays that go beyond surface-level tactics and challenge how you think about engineering leadership, building teams, and leading with intention.

Subscribe now

Through years of building, leading, and scaling teams, I’ve learned that leadership has a strange duality.

Sometimes the dashboards stay green, the milestones land, and from the outside it all looks like progress. But inside, leaders can still feel the drift, not from any single role or company, but from the nature of the work itself.

You step into a role because you want to build. To scale something. Not just to lead, but to shape it with your own hands. To give it meaning, or perhaps to let it give meaning to your life.

In the beginning, it feels alive. Ideas turn into action. Action into progress.

But then the pace takes over. The weeks blur. The work becomes a current that carries you whether you want to move or not.

On paper, it looks like progress. In your chest, it feels like absence.

• Team growth that multiplies your meetings but divides your impact

• A calendar so full it looks like importance, but feels like imprisonment

• Your team shipping faster than ever, even though you're not sure what you're shipping toward

• Promotions that expand your influence but narrow your impact

• Back-to-back successful quarters that somehow feel identical

Momentum is seductive like that. It whispers: Keep going. You’re moving fast. That must mean you’re going somewhere. But momentum lies. Well, sometimes. It conflates motion with meaning, speed with significance. It mistakes the dashboard for the destination.

And there are moments that cut through the momentum that remind you why you started:

• A strategic decision where you can see the long-term impact, not just the quarterly numbers

• An unexpected hour with no meetings where you make something real

• Watching someone you developed tackle a challenge that would have stumped them a year ago

• A moment when your architecture choice from months ago enables something beautiful you never anticipated

• A team retrospective where everyone's talking about the work, not the process

But they’re flashes, not fire. Brief reminders of purpose in an ocean of motion. But you keep moving, afraid that if you slow down, you’ll see what’s missing. Afraid that stopping will push you out of the comfort of always being on the run.

Over time, I’ve learned that meaning doesn’t wait at the end of a milestone. It lives in the middle. In the reason you said yes in the first place. And if you don’t tend to it, the motion will hollow you out.

That’s why it matters to pause. To step outside the rush and ask yourself:

• Why did I say yes to this role?

• Am I still walking in that direction?

• Or have I been drifting and letting the work define me instead of the other way around?

Because the truth is, the job will never stop taking. It’s on you to decide what you’ll give and what you’ll keep. The real measure of leadership isn’t just whether you deliver for the company. It’s whether you can deliver for yourself, too.

So every now and then, pull yourself out of the current.

Remind yourself not to confuse velocity with direction, or metrics with meaning.

And when you feel yourself slipping out of your own story, stop. Find your way back to the reason you started.

Share and Subscribe

I love sharing insights on engineering leadership and career growth. If this resonated with you, pass it along to someone who might find it useful.

And if you got this from a friend, don’t leave without hitting ‘Subscribe’ — it’s free, and my posts will come straight to your inbox.

Subscribe now

There’s a popular saying: “Growth is the miracle drug. It fixes everything.”

I’ve heard it in boardrooms and town halls, sometimes whispered as a coping mechanism, other times shouted as strategy. And sure, growth helps. It buys time. It boosts morale. It creates options.

But after years of building teams, I’ve come to believe:

Growth doesn’t fix all the problems. A sense of belonging does.

When we engineer a sense of belonging — when people feel seen, trusted, and part of something that matters — that’s when the real work begins to thrive.

Belonging isn’t about comfort. It’s about commitment. It creates the kind of invisible glue that holds people together during the uncertainty, the pivots, the late nights. It’s what makes people say, “This is hard, but I’m staying in it.”

Without that foundation, growth can become a kind of morphine: a painkiller that numbs the organization to deeper problems. It can create the illusion of progress while structural issues fester underneath. You’ll see this in companies that are hitting their numbers, but quietly bleeding trust. Where teams deliver, but no longer collaborate.

It’s not that these problems are invisible, most leaders see the cracks. But growth offers the comfort of motion. The safety of charts that go up and to the right. It feels easier to chase the next quarter than to pause and fix the culture.

So we put off the hard conversations. We tell ourselves the system is working — after all, look at the numbers.

But growth built on avoidance is fragile.

One market shift, one missed forecast, and the whole thing starts to wobble. Because what was missing wasn’t strategy. It was cohesion. Trust. Belonging.

Some of the best leaders I’ve known do something that seems counterintuitive:
They pause.
They listen.
They trade a few points of short-term growth for long-term resilience.
They understand that fixing what's inside the company is not a distraction from growth, it’s the most leveraged path to it.

Belonging is not soft.

Belonging is the core operating system for durable, human-centered companies.

And it’s the thing that allows growth to not just happen, but stick. If you’re leading a team, a company, a product, ask yourself: are we chasing growth as a band-aid, or building a culture that can carry it?

Because growth impresses.
But belonging?
Belonging endures.

This doesn’t mean you trade performance for belonging. You need to design for both and that too consciously, and relentlessly. Because in the long run, the most resilient growth comes not from teams that are just productive…But from teams that believe in each other.

And here’s one simple way to visualize that tension:

As you can see the interplay between performance and belonging doesn’t just shape how teams feel, it shapes how they perform over time.

Belonging gives performance its depth. Performance gives belonging its direction. When they’re in balance, teams don’t just deliver, they endure.

What if the culture employees actually experience isn’t the one you’re working so hard to build?

Leaders obsess over company culture, yet employees don’t experience "the company", they experience their team.

A company's culture is often described in mission statements, leadership principles, or core values, but these abstract ideals don't shape an employee's daily experience. Instead, what truly shapes their experience is how their manager responds in a moment of crisis, whether their teammates collaborate or compete, and if they feel respected and heard.

Consider 'trust' as a common core value: while it may be prominently displayed in the lobby, that trust shatters when employees who throw their colleagues under the bus are promoted over those who collaborate with integrity. A company may claim to value ‘innovation,’ but if teams are constantly under tight deadlines with no slack for experimentation, no access to necessary tools, and no tolerance for failed attempts, innovation remains just an empty slogan.

You see, culture isn't something that trickles down from the top; it is reinforced or eroded, one team at a time.

Yet, instead of focusing on team leadership, many companies delegate culture-building to HR, organizing monthly engagement activities. But consider this: in a typical month, an employee works 20 days, 8 hours a day: 160 hours in total. If just one of those hours is dedicated to company-wide culture-building activities, that leaves 159 hours where culture is shaped by their team. Your HR team can create the blueprint, but it’s team leaders who construct the daily reality of culture.

This team environment isn't just complementary to company culture, it is the primary channel through which employees experience the organization. If that channel is unhealthy, no amount of planned engagement activities can compensate for it, nor will they stop employees from looking elsewhere.

Team Leaders: The True Culture Architects

The simplest and most effective way to build a strong company culture is to ensure that every — product or executive leadership — team has a caring and competent leader who fosters psychological safety, grants autonomy, and challenges its members to grow. When these elements are in place, culture isn't something employees need to be reminded of, it becomes part of how they work and thrive.

This is why leadership at the team level is the real lever for cultural codification. Strong leadership isn't just about hitting goals, it's about setting the tone for everyday interactions. Leaders who recognize their responsibility in shaping team culture prioritize trust over control, learning over blame, innovation over the status quo, and empowerment over micromanagement.

For new managers, this is the key takeaway: you are not just managing tasks, you are shaping the daily experience of your team. Your leadership determines whether employees feel valued, motivated, and aligned with the broader company culture.

We live our lives chasing dreams—our bodies in the present, our minds lost in the future. There’s an innate restlessness within us—an inability to just be. Most of us are never quite satisfied, not with how we look, how we behave, or how we act. It’s as if we are constantly at odds with ourselves, frustrated for falling short, for not living up to some imagined ideal, some ever-elusive state of perfection.

And yet, this dissatisfaction is paradoxical.

It is both the driving force behind our growth and the greatest burden we carry. It never allows us to rest in our achievements, no matter how significant, yet it propels us forward, fueling our ambitions and pushing us, perhaps, toward an illusion of perfection.

But to what end? What is this elusive ideal we chase, so vast, so undefined, that it keeps contentment just out of reach?

Perhaps the real issue lies in our assumption that perfection exists.

We act as if there is some final state of flawlessness, a finish line where everything will fall into place. But perfection is an illusion, an ever-receding horizon, always just beyond reach. Just as an asymptotic curve approaches its line infinitely without ever touching it, our pursuit of perfection brings us ever closer—yet mathematically, fundamentally unable to reach it. No matter how much we strive, it remains just out of reach.

It happens because our notion of perfection itself is not static but always evolving. As we grow closer to our ideals, they too transform, revealing new horizons of possibility we couldn't previously envision.

Maybe the answer isn’t in breaking free from the pursuit, because striving is part of what makes us human. But we can change our relationship with it. Instead of seeing the gap as failure, perhaps we can embrace it as the space where life happens, not in reaching perfection, but in learning to live with its impossibility.

Perhaps there's freedom in acknowledging perfection's impossibility, not a surrender, but a liberation from the stress and the guilt of unreachable standards. This awareness allows us to honor the journey rather than fixate on an unreachable destination.

Share and Subscribe

I love sharing insights on engineering leadership and career growth. If this resonated with you, pass it along to someone who might find it useful.

And if you got this from a friend, don’t leave without hitting ‘Subscribe’—it’s free, and my posts will come straight to your inbox.

Have you ever played the tapping game among friends? One person taps out the rhythm of a well-known song while others try to guess it. Watching others struggle, you think, "My turn will be different—everyone will recognize my tune in a heartbeat!" But when it’s your turn, your friends give you the same blank stare, just as they did for others, unable to recognize what seems crystal clear to you.

This isn’t just a party game phenomenon—it has been studied in academic research. Stanford researcher Elizabeth Newton demonstrated this bias in her Tappers and Listeners experiment.

Tappers predicted that listeners would guess their songs more than 50% of the time. The actual success rate? A mere 2.5%. Nope, it’s not a typo: 2.5%! Chip and Dan Heath, in Made to Stick, use this to illustrate the curse of knowledge—our tendency to assume others have the same context we do.

Why do I share this?

I've noticed that this same bias is one of leadership’s greatest blind spots too.

As leaders, we live and breathe our vision. The path ahead feels obvious to us, so we assume our teams see it just as clearly. And when they don’t, we’re left wondering why execution falls short.

I feel great leaders recognize this gap. They understand that while they hear the full song in their heads, their teams may only catch a few verses of it. There’s a saying: "When you’re tired of saying it, people are just starting to hear it." The difference between a good leader and a great one often isn’t in the quality of the vision alone—it’s in the ability to communicate, reinforce, and and turn it into action.

So next time you think, "Why hasn’t my team gotten it by now?"

Pause.

You might be tapping, but your team may not be hearing the tune.

Stay Curious, Stay Connected

I love sharing insights on engineering leadership and career growth. If this resonated with you, pass it along to someone who might find it useful.

And if you got this from a friend, don’t leave without hitting ‘Subscribe’—it’s free, and my posts will come straight to your inbox.

Developers often focus on building, not necessarily on how they demo. They treat it like a status update—clicking through features and assuming the work speaks for itself.

But a demo isn't just about proving something works—it's about telling a story. A good demo connects the dots between the problem, the solution, and its impact. It requires clarity, empathy—and a bit of stagecraft.

Who is your audience? What do they care about? Are you guiding them through the aha moments, or just clicking through features?

A bad demo can make even a great product feel underwhelming, while a good one builds excitement and wins buy-in. Here are a few ways to make your demos more effective—and maybe even a little more engaging:

Know Your Audience

A demo is like writing good code—clarity and intent matter.

• Engineers want to see architecture, product managers want to see the features and its experience, and business leaders care about outcomes.

• What matters to them? Speed, usability, cost savings? Tailor your demo to their priorities.

• Identify the moment that will make them say, "Oh, this is great!"—and build toward it.

Set the Context

Jumping straight into a demo without context is like pitching a movie by describing random scenes instead of the plot. Give your audience a reason to care:

• Problem: "Currently, customers spend 7 minutes on this form, causing frustration and drop-offs."

• Solution: "We redesigned the workflow to reduce this to under 60 seconds."

• Impact: "This improves conversion rates and reduces support tickets."

Keep It Crisp

Demos aren't walkthroughs. No one needs to see every menu, every setting, or hear how hard it was to debug an issue. Jump straight to what matters. Set the stage with a quick problem statement, show the solution, and highlight why it's useful.

Show, Don't Just Explain

The best demos minimize words and maximize clarity. Instead of saying, "This API makes it easier to fetch data," show a side-by-side of before and after. Instead of saying, "We improved performance," show a live comparison. Let people see the impact.

Be Interactive

A demo isn't a monologue; it's a conversation.

• Pause for reactions instead of rushing through.

• Watch body language for confusion or excitement.

• Invite questions—if no one asks anything, they might not be connecting.

Plan For Failure (Because It Happens)

Demos break. Networks drop. Bugs appear. It happens. Have a backup plan—recorded video, screenshots, a local version. Confidence comes from knowing you can recover.

Close Strong

Don't trail off with "So, that's it." End with purpose:

• Tie back to business impact: "This reduces processing time by 60%."

• Ask for specific next steps: "Should we discuss rollout?"

• Leave them with excitement about what comes next.

A great demo isn't about what you show—it's about what your audience remembers. Think of it as a bridge between your work and their understanding. You're not just proving your code runs; you're helping people see why it matters.

Let’s Stay Connected

I love sharing insights on engineering leadership and career growth. If this resonated with you, pass it along to someone who might find it useful.

And if you got this from a friend, don’t leave without hitting ‘Subscribe’—it’s free, and you’ll get my posts straight to your inbox.

History’s most enduring institutions—those that have withstood the rise and fall of empires, and cultural revolutions—offer a profound lesson in organizational design. The world’s great religions, for instance, did not endure because of superior strategy or technological advantage.

They lasted because of people who deeply believed. Missionaries.

These were individuals so aligned with a purpose that spreading it was not a job, but a calling. They built communities around shared values and a long-term vision, transmitting culture across generations. The result? Institutions that have thrived for millennia, leaving legacies any Fortune 500 company would dream of emulating.

And that reveals a fundamental truth about organizational longevity: lasting institutions are built primarily by missionaries, not mercenaries. While both have their place, the balance between them determines whether an organization merely survives—or thrives across generations.

Missionaries anchor an organization in purpose. They make decisions through the lens of mission, not just immediate results. They cultivate cultures where actions are driven by values, and they measure success in years rather than quarters. Without these purpose-driven individuals, organizations inevitably drift toward prioritizing immediate metrics over lasting impact.

Yet missionaries alone are insufficient.

Even religious institutions have always relied on specialized expertise. The monasteries that preserved knowledge through the Dark Ages, for example, depended on skilled scribes—not just devoted monks. Modern organizations similarly need mercenaries—specialists who bring deep expertise to defined challenges.

These mercenaries thrive in highly specialized roles with clear parameters. They excel at executing specific initiatives, and introducing innovative approaches unconstrained by "this is how we’ve always done it” kind of thinking. Their objectivity and specialized knowledge complement the missionary's mindset.

The real challenge is the balance between them.

Too few missionaries? Purpose fades and short-term thinking takes over.

Too few mercenaries? The organization stagnates, trapped in its own echo chamber.

The healthiest organizations maintain a missionary core while strategically deploying mercenaries.

First, the executive leadership team should be predominantly missionaries. Those setting the direction and shaping the future must live the mission, not just manage the numbers.

Second, mercenaries should be deployed primarily for specialized functions rather than core operations. Their defined expertise should serve the organization without diluting its purpose.

Third, cultural systems should actively convert mercenaries into missionaries over time. This happens when systems are designed to create alignment, not just extract effort.

Organizations that master this balance are the ones that endure. Their missionaries preserve the soul. Their mercenaries sharpen the edge. And together, they build something that lasts.

Becoming an engineering manager is like stepping into a parallel universe where the rules of success have changed. The excitement fades—not because the role lacks challenge or significance, but because the way you create value has fundamentally shifted. The skills that once set you apart—technical mastery, deep focus, and problem-solving—now take a backseat. Instead of building products, you're building people. Instead of writing code, you're orchestrating collaboration. Success is no longer about what you produce, but how well you enable others to succeed.

For engineers, this can feel disorienting. Their ideal day is spent solving problems, optimizing systems, and writing code in deep focus. Even when multitasking, they’re constantly creating. Then, almost overnight, that creative superpower is stripped away—much like Thor losing his Mjölnir.

Suddenly, you’re not coding; you’re stuck in back-to-back meetings. Conversations about scalable architecture give way to discussions on scaling a team. Bug triage turns into listening to your team members' challenges. You now juggle schedules, morale, client expectations, one-on-ones, and everything else that comes with management.

This distortion in your creation-consumption balance is the biggest reason your excitement wanes in the new role. The shift from creating to consuming can feel disorienting—like watching the ground disappear beneath your feet.

The work that once fueled your sense of accomplishment— writing elegant code and building something tangible—slowly slips away. In its place, an endless stream of meetings, team dynamics, and decision-making rushes in. The balance tilts, and before you know it, you’re stuck in a cycle of consuming—digesting updates, resolving conflicts, and context-switching—while the technical work that once defined you dwindles to near zero.

To succeed, you need to embrace this new reality: Management isn’t about what you build anymore—it’s about enabling others to succeed. Without this mindset shift, you’ll constantly feel torn between what you want to do and what you have to do.

But that doesn’t mean you have to give up creating entirely.

Find small ways to keep your creative spark alive—whether it’s contributing to design, debugging critical issues, or staying engaged with new technologies, even in the margins of your day. These moments help restore some balance in your creation-consumption ratio while also making you a better coach for your team.

Being mindful of these small actions can help you enjoy your new role, create a positive impact, and feel a sense of fulfillment in leadership.

Over time, you’ll realize leadership is its own form of creation—not through what you build with your hands, but through what you shape in others.

I learned something interesting today that reshaped how I think about organizations: proprioception – our body's ability to sense position and movement in space. Often called the 'sixth sense,' it operates beneath our awareness, allowing us to know exactly where our limbs are and how they're moving, even with our eyes closed. When it works well, we are agile and coordinated. When it’s weak, even simple actions become clumsy.

The same is true for organizations.

When 'organizational proprioception' is weak, the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing—or worse, sometimes actively works against it. Information stalls, collaboration suffers, and execution crawls. I've seen this play out a few times, where brilliant strategies crumble not because of poor ideas, but because teams lacked the awareness to execute in sync.

Think of a well-coordinated NBA team. Players anticipate each other’s moves, passing and adjusting with near-instant awareness. They don't need to call out every play; they just know. It's not magic—it's the result of building deep organizational awareness, where each player understands not just their role, but how it fits into the larger whole.

In contrast, some organizations function like a disorganized pickup game—execution bogged down by friction, sub-optimal organization design that pits one team against another, and decisions lost in endless email chains. We've all seen good ideas die—not because they lacked merit, but because of poor organization design, misaligned incentives, or endless approval loops.

Strengthening organizational proprioception is easier said than done, and I wish I had all the answers.

That said, it requires rethinking how information flows and decisions get made. But the principles seem surprisingly simple. For instance, leaders who share early signals through regular staff meetings—transparently discussing business metrics, upcoming challenges, and strategic shifts—help teams adjust proactively rather than reacting too late. When teams have clear decision-making guardrails, they can act autonomously while staying aligned. And when people see how their work fits into the bigger picture, they focus on what truly matters—without needing constant direction.

The result? A faster organizational clock-speed, and seamless execution. But for me, the impact goes beyond mere efficiency. When we cultivate this shared awareness, we foster a sense of collective ownership and our teams become more than just the sum of their parts.

A lesson I learned the hard way: the leadership traits that make you an effective entrepreneur don’t always translate seamlessly in a larger organization.

As a founder, putting the spotlight on your team becomes second nature. Success stems from developing others, celebrating their wins, appreciating them in public, and working behind the scenes to enable their growth. Your ego takes a backseat to your team’s development—and that’s exactly as it should be.

This approach, much like servant leadership, focuses on empowering others first. But here's the paradox I discovered after transitioning to a corporate role: this instinct to elevate others while staying in the background can sometimes inadvertently work against you.

In larger organizations, visibility isn’t about ego—it’s about ensuring your impact is recognized. When you consistently deflect credit, operate behind the scenes, and focus on enabling others rather than showcasing your own contributions, you risk becoming invisible. Not because your impact isn’t there, but because you’ve become too skilled at making it subtle.

Here’s how this can manifest in day-to-day work:

• When you empower team members to lead meetings while you support from the sidelines, presence becomes an unfair proxy for commitment.

• When you quietly mentor colleagues and help them succeed, your fingerprints on their growth often go unnoticed.

• When you celebrate your team’s wins without contextualizing your role in enabling them, your leadership impact becomes understated.

The solution isn’t to stop being generous with credit or to become self-promotional even though your natural human instinct will tell you so. Sadly, I have been down that road as well. Instead, what I have come to learn is that it’s about finding a balance—one that honors your instinct to develop others while ensuring your contributions are understood.

Think of it like being a film director—take Christopher Nolan, for example. While the actors are in the spotlight, no one questions the director’s critical role in the production. The director doesn’t need to be on screen, but their impact is clear.

I'm still learning to navigate this balance - between staying true to my instincts of elevating others while ensuring my contributions remain visible. The challenge isn't in choosing between the two, but in finding ways to do both authentically.

Perhaps the true art of leadership lies in making your impact visible without dimming anyone else’s light.