I used to be the kind of American who loved a quick New York-style meeting. Walk in, fast intros, distill overlaps, debate for a few minutes, then leave before the latte cools. Limited small talk or pleasantries, just cut to the chase and done.

Then London happened. Fifteen years of pastry breaks and digressions. Meetings here sprawl. Lunch slides into coffee, coffee slides into “just one pint,” and suddenly you’re discussing AI ethics over sticky toffee pudding. It’s about the long game… relationship first, deal second. I got used to breathing room.

Fast-forward to last month in San Diego. I had time between meetings and reached out to someone interesting. No real agenda, just being “friendly”. The guy said “Swing by, I have 15.” I pictured sunshine, tacos, maybe a stroll. Nope… stopwatch on, espresso already half-gone, eye contact set to “prove it.”

Old me would’ve loved the speed. New me tried small talk… a joke about jet lag (not even a chuckle). My sprint reflex was dull. I was running in flip-flops, while this guy slept in a hypobaric chamber (1).

Twelve minutes in, I realized my error and made it clear that I had more to offer him than vice versa. He granted overtime, and at 29 minutes walked out saying he’d see me next time in London (eg he’d love some of my contacts).

Walking out, I wondered, “Did Europe make me soft”?

I texted my friend Jordan about this ‘hardcore’ guy. He had a simple reply:

Not only do I love tea and cakes, I actually write about the glory of a 3-hour conversation. What have I become!?!

I’ve become someone who values relationships, and broadly that’s a good thing. Europe helped me build a different muscle group. Long talks build depth, while short ones force precision. Focus on deadlifts and you’ll struggle with sprints.

The workaround is cross-training. I’ll schedule more time-limited conversations to stay sharp, and continue my marathons to stay human. I’ll use AI to help draft a “power paragraph” – one breath, all value. I’ll relive my debate days by writing five potential objections and a one-line reply for each.

Gear-shifting matters as well. Being able to read the room is a superpower. My goal for the year is to become fluent in identifying both dialects and quickly adapt their cadences – a true dual mastery.

Sprint when the bell rings, stroll when the sun’s out. Come across a stopwatch mentality, then start fast and earn the extension. Or spot pastries and throttle down, then push for a takeaway. Because business (and life) isn’t one speed fits all; it’s the playlist you shuffle on purpose.

—

(1) what marathon runners use to mimic high altitude to increase red blood cell production

I recently heard what I initially thought was a terrible idea from a founder who was running out of money.

“Hey Andy, I’m thinking about throwing a big launch party to promote our new product.’ My gut reaction? ‘You must be joking, right? With 3 months of runway?” I admit, my response was less than enthusiastic…”

Our default response to new ideas is often a quick gut reaction, almost a survival instinct. After all, avoiding the berry no one else ate kept our ancestors alive for 300,000 years. But today, that instinct often stands in the way of innovation.

I feel like a human’s default gut reaction is to think: “Bad idea.” Makes sense, ‘running away’ from the berry that nobody ate kept us alive for 300,000 years.

The problem is, good ideas often sound like bad ideas. And one critical component to discovering a good idea is hearing (and considering) a lot of bad ideas. But you won’t hear many ideas at all if your gut reaction is “Bad idea.”

Yep, receiving an innovative idea is hard, very hard. Especially if you want to hear them more often. That’s why the first few seconds are critical. The problem is:

• new ideas don’t come very often
• new ideas initially sound stupid, risky, funny, unhinged… or all of the above
• new ideas will stop coming to you if your response is anything but interest

Here’s a test: Think about what you enjoy doing the most every day. Now imagine I suggest you stop doing that and instead do something you hate. Your gut reaction? “That’s a horrible idea!” But what if, instead, you said, ‘Let me think about that’? By shifting your response, you’re opening the door to new possibilities.

What if an app was designed to help break this “bad idea” reflex? Each day, it would share a deliberately bad idea and require you to respond with a compliment. Maybe we just need a simpe way to train our minds to stay open to new thinking, even when an idea sounds odd at first.

It’s one thing for a person to try and be more open to new ideas, but what about an organization? Scaling a company and keeping its entrepreneurial nature is notoriously challenging, to me it starts with how new ideas are received.

Thinking about the Airbnb founders’ 11-star experience framework, what would that experience look like for someone sharing a new idea within their organization?

1 Star – A new idea leads to getting fired
2 Stars – A new idea is publically mocked
3 Stars – A new idea is received with indifference
4 Stars – A new idea is enthusiastically complimented publically
5 Stars – A new idea quarterly bonus and promotion metric
6 Stars – A new idea annual all-expense-paid trip
9 Stars – A new idea makes you the most well respected and highest compensated person in the company, you’re made the CEO and Board Chair and spiritual leader of the company
11 Stars – A new idea is received by a stadium full of cheering fans who all think you’re a true genius for sharing an idea, they’re begging for your autograph and offering $1m for each new idea you share

Of course, the 11-star experience is fantasy. But aiming for a culture that regularly hits 5-6 stars – where new ideas are welcomed, rewarded, and seriously considered, can have real organizational impact.

The quantity of new ideas alone is not the end goal. And incentivizing constant ideas with no evaluation or action can turn into a distracted/scattered organization. Doesn’t incentivizing new ideas, even imperfect ones, ultimately lead to more revenue growth than suppressing them?

In addition to individual-specific new idea rewards, what if management bonuses were tied to the company’s capacity to generate new idea? Maybe an annual survey question “how does management respond to innovative ideas” with a quantitative 1-10 response between “very positively” and “very negatively”

Just think if this question was asked to every employee of a public company – I wonder how “good idea metric” would overlay with share price?

I’ll finish with a reminder to myself how to respond to new ideas. Maybe something like this:

“I love how you share new ideas with me, you really have a talent for creativity and brainstorming. Please keep sharing them with me! You sure have me thinking now, can you tell me a little more about how your idea would work?”

By changing the way we respond to new ideas – whether from a colleague, founder, or friend -we encourage innovation and help the next ‘big idea’ emerge. Even if it starts out sounding terrible.

Just before putting my 3-year-old son to bed, I asked if he ever wanted to go to the train museum.

His response? “Will we see the train’s bones?”

Instantly, I realized that he was still in “Natural History Museum mode” after seeing dinosaur skeletons on our last trip. It was hilarious – and brilliant.

What a reminder of how creative kids are. To him, anything could have bones, even trains! It’s that same unfiltered imagination that startup founders thrive on.

Kids don’t box in ideas, they mash them together in unexpected ways – exactly what innovation is all about. So maybe next time I brainstorm, I’ll ask him what kind of bones a startup unicorn might have

Yesterday, something magical happened… I managed to have a conversation that lasted longer than 30 minutes. Not just any conversation, mind you, but one that took a glorious 3-hours.

The funny thing is, it didn’t feel like an all-encompassing marathon of ideas, laughter, and brainstorming. There were no grand assertions or emotional embraces. It was just a nice long catchup with someone who I enjoyed being with. It was both special and not that special at the same time (if that’s possible?).

Now, don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the efficiency of the 30-minute coffee catch-up. It’s the happy meal of social interaction: quick, familiar, and gets the job done. But let’s be honest, it’s never as good as the picture. You’re no longer hungry, but not exactly satisfied.

Those 3-hour conversations, though? They’re the Michelin dining of the social world. You savor the conversation like a perfectly cooked dish, the interesting questions the amuse-bouche, the exciting possibilities the main course, and dessert is looking forward to your next catch-up.

So, here’s my ambitious goal: by the end of the year I aim to have more 3-hour conversations than 30-minute catch-ups. (Wish me luck, we’re talking literally swimming pools of black tea!)

I’ll ditch the ” gotta run” mentality and embrace the potential of extended conversation. Instead of asking, “How about we connect next week for 3 hours?” I’ll leave ample time after my normal conversations for overflow. If they’re going well, who knows how long they could last!

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have some strategizing to do. How do I subtly extend a ‘quick coffee chat’ into a conversation worthy of a three-hour epic? Wish me luck!”

(Person wondering in a field, by Diffusionbee)

I’m not sure the word ‘should’ is appropriate to use in a business setting.

Yes, I’m fully aware it would take a monumental effort to remove ‘should’ from our vocabulary. But that’s exactly what I’m suggesting.

Don’t take this to the extreme, I’m not against a simple ‘we should go or we’ll be late’. But in a meeting, brainstorming, or even casual watercooler conversation, I’m advocating for the removal of ‘should’.

Why, you may ask? Well, when someone says “we/I/you should do <something>”, it’s basically a command. And who wants to be commanded to do anything?

At most, if someone has a different opinion they will reply “I think we should do <something else>”. Where does that leave you… at an impass. At worst, they disagree but stay quiet, which certainly never uncovers the true best outcome.

‘Should’ leads to micro-management. ‘Should’ leads to people leaving. ‘Should’ leads to total destruction (OK, maybe a little too far).

Now, you may ask, what to replace this menacing ‘should’ word with? I wonder…

That’s right, ‘I wonder’ is a simple substitute for ‘should’ that opens a conversation rather than closes it.

‘I wonder’ poses a question that’s open to debate/feedback/comment. It’s the verbal equivalent to opening your palms rather than crossing your arms.

Nobody takes ‘I wonder’ as a command. Nobody views a boss saying “I wonder if this would be a good option” and thinks they’re a terrible dictator.

I had a board member who trained himself to ‘wonder’ all the time. Guess what, we had great open discussions about basically everything. I quickly started replying with a ‘wonder’ to his ‘wonder’… it was great.

So get a rubber band, put it on your wrist, and give yourself a good snap every time you say ‘should’ for the next few days. Then remind yourself to wonder. Extra credit for counting how many people wonder back to you.

Wonder more, should less… I’m guessing your conversations will be better for it.

The same can be said for the founders I work with. Trying to gauge the value-add of an investor feels nearly impossible during the fundraising ‘sales’ process (on both sides), and a founder backing out post termsheet because of a negative investor reference is nearly unheard of.

Something Kevin Kelly mentioned about reference checks (1) struck a nerve with me recently – that people are “reluctant to say anything negative” (which we all know) and to “elevate good behavior 10x more than punishing bad behavior”.

Kevin’s suggestion is to write a quick note asking to “get back to me if you highly recommend this <applicant> as super-great”

My first thought was that founders should write a similar “let me know if this investor has been highly valuable” email to a potential investor’s portfolio companies (2). That works fine on an individual basis, but the information is lost to the broader ecosystem.

Idea: send an email/message on the yearly anniversary of every investment round to every founder in the world, asking if each investor is incredibly value-add.

Then I thought, why not bake this idea into one of the many investor feedback sites that have launched recently? Or better yet, launch a new platform that simply asks “Is this investor incredibly value-add?”

No 1-10 ratings. No ‘Quite friendly’ or ‘They showed up late’ feedback. No investor rebuttal. Just the plain truth if an investor is incredibly value-add or not. Then display a ranked list of what investor has the highest number of founders who believe they’re incredible. Now that’s something I’d like to see.

—

(1) Bits of Advice I Wish I Had Known
(1b) Freakanomics Podcast

DUBNER: Here’s one that resonated with me in part because it’s very practical and in part because it has happened to me. You write, “When checking references for a job applicant, employers may be reluctant or prohibited from saying anything negative. So instead,” you write, “Leave or send a message that says, ‘Get back to me if you highly recommend this applicant as super-great.’ And if they don’t reply, take that as a negative.” Does that actually work? Do you know people who’ve had success with that method?

KELLY: Yes, I have used that method. There is a kind of a weird cultural moment right now where there actually are companies that cannot comment on previous employees and stuff. There’s a bias to saying anything negative for various reasons. But I have used this model of leaving a message on an answering machine earlier and now with an email saying, “Only reply if this person is super-great,” and sometimes I have not heard back anything. That’s a sign. And other times I’ve heard back, “Yes, you’re lucky to have this person.”

(2) Dear founder, I am considering taking an investment from <NAME>. Could you get back to me with a simple ‘Yes’ IF they have been incredibly value-add and you highly recommend them? If they are truly amazing and I’d be lucky to have their support, then I’d appreciate hearing from you.

I’ve always noticed speed varies drastically from company to company. Some are amazingly efficient, while others meander (or worse).

Recently, a founder asked me to help significantly increase their company’s speed. After a few conversations, we distilled the issue to focus and accountability. Basically, cut activities that don’t directly create value and stop accepting mediocre results.

I wonder, are focus and accountability the key drivers of speed at any company?

Are there other components of speed I’m missing? Do most companies consider how specifically to increase execution speed?

One aspect may be the mentality of team members; maybe some inherently execute faster and this company just has slow people? Or can anyone be fast when key company and leadership components are in place?

Basically, I’m left with more questions than answers. But I’m pretty confident speed is a leading indicator of a company’s success.

(1) Surprisingly it was a first-time request… seeing as how common the issue is

Here’s one of my favorite slides from the “Going Global” session I hosted today with some amazing ScaleNL Dutch founders.

While some people present what they know, I basically overshare all the things I screwed up over the years… kind of like my version of group therapy.

I remember caring so much about consistency, brand, execution… when none of that really moved the needle compared to trusting and supporting the great people around me.

Hopefully reliving me on the Iron Throne trying to force people way smarter than me to ‘bend the knee’ will help others not make the same mistake

I love what Stéphane and his crew at OpenVC are building, such an amazingly open ethos. They shared 14 actual cold outreach examples recently sent to VCs, all had the same general cadence:

Hi <VC>, I’m <NAME> with <BACKGROUND> building <PRODUCT> achieving <TRACTION> raising <ROUND>.

Anything feel off to you? Basically, all 14 are totally canned. And these were the best If you’re a VC, do these ever actually convert?

Email 5 at least writes “we feel like a great fit for <VC>”, but doesn’t qualify why with applicable examples.

Email 11 refers to a “chart on your website”, so at least there was a glance of research, but nothing further?

My guess is the amount of research/commonalities a founder refers to in a cold email directly correlates with their first call conversion rate:

Canned < 1%
Highly targeted > 10%

I wonder how many first calls an email like this would get…

Hi <SPECIFIC VC>

Congrats on closing your fund <#>, I’m sure <INVESTMENT> must have helped – what an amazing company!

I noticed your post <POST> and investments in <Y> and <Z>, we seem to share a common interest in <INDUSTRY/MODEL>. In fact, I’ve been building <COMPANY> to solve <PROBLEM>, which I’m guessing you have some experience with as well…

Whatever else is written from here, as long as it’s concise, my guess is the VC would appreciate the outreach enough have a conversation.

If a founder puts this kind of effort into an investor email, just think what they will do to win customers, staff, etc. (or so a VC might say to themself).

A+: “Many thanks for the intro!”
A: “I appreciate you thinking of us!”
A- “Thanks for sharing the opportunity” (x2)
B: “Please introduce me”
B-: “Happy to speak with them” (x2)
C: “We will have a look”

I wouldn’t say the differences are huge, but next time I’ll certainly consider prioritizing the 50% who say thanks.

Interestingly, how appreciative the reply is correlates well with the ‘tier’ of the fund – the A’s are all top European VCs.