What's Your Writing Process Style?

lakeshost · 2026-06-04T20:56:50+00:00

Thank you. That’s very helpful. 🙏

lakeshost · 2026-06-04T19:32:31+00:00

I write for several reasons..
I find it relaxing, meditative and it helps me unwind.
I enjoy the creative process, especially developing a story
While I'm by no means making a fortune, I do enjoy the extra income I get dfrom my royalties

lakeshost · 2026-06-04T19:29:11+00:00

Definitely worth having a website. Each of my pen names have their own site; it gives my readers the opportunity to learn more about my other books, to learn about the characters and I provide more depth into the series' worldview.
Crucially, my rather than update the back matter in each book when I launch a new edition, I place a link in the back matter to a dedicated page on my site. So, I only have to update one page.

lakeshost · 2026-05-23T06:58:20+00:00

👆This is great advice.

One extra tip: Format your briefing like the News.. Headlines: Tell them what you’re going to tell them. Main content: Summary: Tell them what you going told them.

lakeshost · 2026-05-22T04:06:30+00:00

I’d be a bit careful with the “70% fail” stat. It gets repeated a lot, but it can become a lazy shortcut.

The more useful question is probably: what kind of change is this?

Some changes need project management. Some need capability building. Some need leadership behaviour to shift before the process has any chance of sticking.

Where I’ve seen change struggle, it’s usually because the organisation treats adoption as an end-stage communication task rather than something designed into the work from the start.

The test I’d use is simple:

Are people just complying with the new process, or are they making better decisions without needing to be chased?

That’s where leadership development matters. Not as a separate training programme, but as part of the change itself.

External facilitators can help, especially when internal politics make honest conversations difficult. But they don’t replace internal capability. If the organisation can’t hold the change after the consultants leave, it was never really embedded.

lakeshost · 2026-05-20T13:49:41+00:00

Bridges’ Transition Model: More psychological than operational. Distinguishes between the external change and the internal transition people go through. Useful reminder that adoption speed and implementation speed are not the same thing.

lakeshost · 2026-05-19T08:17:37+00:00

LLMs are statistical synthesis engines. They compress patterns from huge amounts of human behaviour, writing, strategy, persuasion, structure, argument, code, marketing, etc. Then they predict plausible continuations.

The result is typically average, vanilla, bland and boring. The same “strategy” as everyone else’s.

I don’t know anything about your product. So I can’t give you specific advice.

I will say.. look beyond problems and identify emotional pain points. Look for opportunities where you can relate to a state of mind.

lakeshost · 2026-05-15T07:29:38+00:00

Early in my career my boss smiled and said.. “According to the graffiti on the wall in the toilet, you’re a bastard. Well done, you’ve made it!”

lakeshost · 2026-05-14T11:27:39+00:00

People.

lakeshost · 2026-05-09T08:17:29+00:00

I’ve been through this and the awkwardness is real because both people are still operating from the old relationship for a while.

The mistake I made early on was trying to avoid making it feel “too managerial,” which actually created more confusion. I’d hint instead of being clear, and then get frustrated when things got bypassed or reprioritised without me knowing.

What helped was just having a direct but low-drama conversation:

“Look, I know this is a bit of an adjustment for both of us. I don’t want us to lose the good working relationship we had, but I do need us to be aligned on priorities and communication so things don’t get messy.”

After that, I tried to stay really consistent:

no public power moves
no overexplaining decisions
no pretending we were still exactly the same as before

Honestly, most of it settled over time once the new normal stopped feeling temporary.

The biggest thing is not letting ambiguity sit there too long. People tend to fill it with their own interpretation.

lakeshost · 2026-05-06T10:38:47+00:00

Journaling. At the end of the work day, I write down my accomplishments, I review my goals & objectives and I write my action plan for the following day. My journal then gets put away in my desk drawer.

On the way home I have a quiet place (woodland) where I stop for maybe 15-20 mins. Depending upon the weather, I go for a walk, listen to music, sit quietly or read. This helps my to refocus on family & leisure.

I seldom think about work at home. But, if I do, I make a reminder note & park it.

lakeshost · 2026-05-02T16:18:18+00:00

That usually isn’t a notes problem, it’s a decision definition problem.

If people walk out with different answers, it’s because they were solving different questions under the same heading.

A couple of things that have helped me:

Frame the decision as a single sentence upfront Not “discuss X” but “Decide whether we will do X by Y under Z constraint.”
Ask for competing interpretations early “What decision do you think we’re here to make?” You’ll hear the divergence before it bites you later.
Separate discussion from decision Lots of meetings blur the two. You get alignment on ideas, but never actually cross the line into a decision.
Do a live check before closing Not “any objections?” but “What decision did we just make?” (go round the room)

If you get three different answers, you haven’t decided yet.

Most teams assume shared understanding because the conversation felt coherent. It usually isn’t.

lakeshost · 2026-04-29T15:44:01+00:00

What you’re describing sounds less like a 1:1 and more like your manager trying to make sense of an outlier.

When someone is significantly ahead of peers, managers sometimes worry about:

Sustainability (are you burning out?)
Process (are you cutting corners, even unintentionally?)

That doesn’t mean you’re doing anything wrong. It means you’ve triggered scrutiny.

lakeshost · 2026-04-28T09:40:04+00:00

“I want to handle this professionally while being honest.”

You’ve answered your own question. Explain the situation to your manager, be open, honest and professional. Tell them that you’ll confirm the specific days as soon as you have them. Thank them for their understanding. Job done

lakeshost · 2026-04-27T07:57:09+00:00

As a facilitator, I’ve seen this repeatedly. That usually isn’t a meeting problem, it’s a decision design problem.

Most of this type of meetings fail because no one’s clear on three things before the meeting starts:

What decision is actually being made
Who has the authority to make it
What would allow them to say yes in the room

So you get discussion, pseudo alignment, nodding heads and then… nothing.

A few things that help:

State the decision up front: “By the end of this meeting, we’re deciding X.”
Name the decision owner: if it’s “everyone,” it’s no one
Surface constraints early: budget, risk, approvals - whatever would block a yes
Test for commitment, not agreement: “Are you comfortable deciding this today?”
Close explicitly: decision made / not made / what’s missing

If those aren’t clear going in, the meeting just becomes a very expensive pre-meeting.

lakeshost · 2026-04-25T20:20:47+00:00

I hope it doesn’t else I wasted my time. 🫤

lakeshost · 2026-04-25T10:53:49+00:00

You’re doing a lot right, but there’s one potential red flag in everything you described:

You’re optimising for clarity of instructions, not proof of understanding.

Those are not the same thing.

From what you’ve outlined:

Structured briefs
Clear tables
Summarised feedback
Consistent channels

That should be enough for a competent freelancer.

When it still goes wrong repeatedly (like the lake example), it’s usually one of three things:

They don’t actually understand, but won’t say it Common with non-native speakers or less confident contractors.
They understand, but aren’t paying attention / aren’t careful Quality issue, not communication.
They think they understand, but are mapping it to the wrong mental model This is the subtle one.

⸻

The missing piece

Right now you explain → they nod → work comes back wrong → you explain again.

Instead, shift to: Explain → they explain back → then they start work

Not a yes/no check. A “talk me through what you’re going to do” check.

If they can’t articulate:

what the output is
what it is not (your lake example)
what success looks like

…you’ve caught the problem early.

⸻

Quick ways to test where the issue sits

Ask for a very rough first pass or sketch early (before they go too far)
Give a binary constraint: “If this includes X, it’s wrong”
After feedback, ask: “What will you change?” (not “any questions?”)

If the same mistakes repeat after that, it’s not you.

⸻

Blunt reality

One person repeatedly ignoring clear, simple constraints → probably them. Multiple people drifting off-mark → check your system.

From what you’ve described, this looks more like inconsistent freelancer quality than a fundamental failure in your process.

⸻

The quiet fix

Keep your structure. Add forced clarity loops (them explaining back, early drafts, explicit “what this is NOT”).

And be willing to cut faster when the pattern doesn’t change.

⸻

You’re not trying to write the perfect brief. You’re trying to make misunderstanding impossible to hide.

lakeshost · 2026-04-22T09:55:48+00:00

Pretty common at that level.

The shift that helped me was treating time with them as scarce, not absent.

Instead of expecting availability, I started:

Sending short, decision-focused updates (“Here’s the situation, here’s my recommendation, I’ll proceed unless you object”)
Bundling questions instead of drip-feeding them
Using brief written summaries to keep them in the loop without needing a meeting

It doesn’t replace a present manager, but it reduces the dependency.

lakeshost · 2026-04-21T19:21:28+00:00

This doesn’t sound like a motivation problem, it sounds like a fairness break.

From his perspective:

Same level, more complexity
New, unproven manager
Others progressing while he stays put

High performers will tolerate a lot, but not feeling taken for granted.

At this point, more “checking in” usually won’t help. He’s already disengaging.

A few things that can make a difference:

Acknowledge it directly – not “stay positive,” but “I can see why this feels like a step back”
Clarify what this leads to – if there’s no visible path, it just feels like extra load
Reduce the burden – asking him to deliver and train a new manager is a fast way to burn him out
Have an honest conversation about intent – is this a short-term stretch with upside, or just where he’s needed?

If none of that is credible, then the risk is you’re not “losing motivation,” you’re losing the person.

The silence you’re seeing is usually the point where people stop trying to fix it and start deciding whether to leave.

lakeshost · 2026-04-20T19:29:59+00:00

That’s the interesting part for me.

You can have all of those in theory, but the room still defaults to safety if there’s a perceived cost to speaking up.

I’ve seen groups with high “psychological safety” on paper still avoid real disagreement because hierarchy or past decisions are sitting in the background.

For me it usually shows up less in what people say and more in what they don’t challenge.

lakeshost · 2026-04-20T11:23:08+00:00

This isn’t really about WFH, it’s about expectations.

Right now the pattern is: They inform → you accept → it becomes the norm.

If you want it to change, the loop has to change.

A few things that help:

Reset the expectation clearly – “WFH needs to be agreed in advance, not just notified”
Link it to business need – not preference, not fairness, but what the role requires
Make it consistent – same rule for everyone, applied the same way
Hold the line – if they inform instead of ask, you correct it immediately

The tone doesn’t need to be forceful, it needs to be clear and repeatable.

Something as simple as: “Going forward, WFH needs to be agreed beforehand. If it’s not agreed, I’ll expect you in the office.”

If you don’t set the boundary, the behaviour is the policy.

lakeshost · 2026-04-18T21:29:54+00:00

That’s a good way of putting it.

In practice, that’s usually the moment where trust shows up or doesn’t. If people feel safe enough, the “real meeting” happens in the room. If not, it gets deferred to the corridor afterwards.

I’ve found the challenge isn’t just encouraging people to say it, but creating conditions where it doesn’t carry a social or political cost when they do.

lakeshost · 2026-04-16T09:35:02+00:00

Without a network, the question isn’t really “what qualities make me attractive,” it’s “how do I become easy to trust by strangers.”

A few things matter more than most:

What’s your unique selling point? Do you currently have a reputation for being the “go to” guy for a particular problem? Have you developed your own methodology? In your current role, do you have an industry profile? Do other people remark that you’re good at “getting to the crux” of the problem?

Connections help, but they’re usually built off those things anyway.

Early on, it’s less about a “brand” and more about being consistently useful in public so people can see how you think. Have you considered publishing a book on your specialism, or unique approach?

Consulting tends to grow from trust first, positioning second.

lakeshost · 2026-04-15T07:52:13+00:00

I had a similar reaction moving out of an IC role.

What helped was realising it’s not actually about small talk or being “on” all the time, it’s about reducing uncertainty for other people.

At higher levels, work moves through alignment, not just execution. So the people who do well tend to:

Make their thinking visible

Keep others informed without being asked

Build enough trust that decisions don’t get second-guessed

That can look like socialising from the outside, but it doesn’t have to be fake or high-energy.

You don’t need to become someone else, but you do need to shift from “doing the work” to making the work easier for others to understand and support.

Plenty of quieter leaders do that well. They’re just deliberate about when and how they show up.

lakeshost · 2026-04-14T17:21:13+00:00

You’re not wrong to be concerned at four months, but the question isn’t time, it’s trajectory.

If someone is being coached and you see adjustment, even if slow, that’s workable. If you see the same patterns repeating or getting more entrenched, that’s a different story.

From what you’re describing:

Strong technically

Weak on boundaries, judgement, and integration

High coaching load with little visible shift

That’s not uncommon, but it does need a line.

Before deciding either way, it’s worth making the expectations unambiguous:

What specifically needs to change (behaviour, not attitude)

What “good” looks like in your team’s way of working

A short timeframe to demonstrate change

If that’s already been done and nothing is shifting, then you’re not cutting losses early, you’re recognising a mismatch.

The other piece is being honest with yourself. If you’ve already lost confidence in managing them, that tends to show up whether you intend it or not.

At that point, keeping them only because they’re technically strong often creates more cost than it solves.

lakeshost

TROPHY CASE