Linkedin all templates

How to re-engage a prospect who has gone cold

A cold prospect is not a lost prospect. Most go quiet because the timing was wrong, not the fit. Here is the sequence that actually brings them back. 1. Wait 30 days from the last touchpoint. Reaching out sooner signals desperation and usually confirms why they went quiet. 2. Lead with something new. A changed circumstance, a relevant piece of content, a customer result in their industry. Give them a reason to re-engage, not just a reminder that you exist. 3. Make the email three sentences. Acknowledge the silence without dwelling on it. Deliver the new thing. Ask one specific question. 4. If they reply but do not re-engage fully, match their energy. A one-paragraph reply deserves one paragraph back, not a full proposal. 5. Three no-responses after a re-engagement attempt is a clear signal. Mark them for a 90-day pause and move attention to where it is being returned. The goal is not to chase. It is to be the person they think of when the timing finally changes.

Asking for feedback on a new product landing page

Quick honest question for anyone who has built or evaluated landing pages: what is the first thing that makes you leave? I am rebuilding our product page and I keep second-guessing the opening. We have a headline, a two-line description, and then we get into features. That order felt right six months ago. Now I am not sure. I have seen advice ranging from "lead with the outcome, not the product" to "be specific about who this is for immediately" to "lead with social proof." All of it makes sense in theory. None of it is a clear answer. If you have seen a landing page that immediately made you stay, or one that lost you in the first three seconds, I would genuinely love to know what the deciding factor was.

Getting feedback on a new course curriculum I am building

I have been building a course on financial modeling for early-stage founders and I have hit a genuine fork. The first half of the curriculum is settled: cash flow basics, how to build a simple forecast, how to read a cap table. That part feels solid. The second half is where I am stuck. I can either go deeper on investor-facing materials, how to present financials in a raise, or I can go toward operational finance: how to use your numbers to make better hiring and pricing decisions. Both feel relevant. But they serve slightly different people at slightly different moments. If you have been through this as a founder, or if you teach or advise in this space, I would genuinely value your read: which half is more useful, and what is missing from what I described? Comments or a quick DM both work. Thank you in advance.

The widening skills gap between available jobs and workforce qualifications

There are currently more open skilled trade and technical positions in the economy than qualified candidates to fill them, and the gap is widening, not closing. This is not a future problem. Companies in manufacturing, infrastructure, healthcare technology, and logistics are making real decisions right now about where to locate, how fast to expand, and whether to automate, based on whether they can hire. The workforce development question sits at the intersection of education systems, employer investment, immigration policy, and individual career choices. No single lever fixes it. What I find worth reflecting on is how much of this gap is structural versus how much is a matter of awareness and incentives. A significant number of available roles pay well and offer genuine career progression. The information about them often does not reach the people who would be well-suited for them. What role do employers, educators, and professionals themselves have in closing that gap?

The impact of local government decisions on small business owners

My neighbor has run a small bakery for eleven years. Last spring, a zoning decision she did not know was happening changed the foot traffic pattern on her street. It was not a dramatic change. A parking configuration shifted. A bus stop moved. Foot traffic on her side of the block dropped by about a third over four months. She had not attended a city council meeting in a decade. She attends every one now. I think about her when I hear people say local politics does not matter or is too slow to bother with. For people running small businesses, local government decisions are often the most direct and consequential ones, and the ones with the most genuine opportunity for civic participation to make a difference. The level of government closest to daily life is also the one where individual voices have the most actual weight. That seems worth remembering.

Whether companies owe employees loyalty in return for theirs

Do companies still owe employees loyalty, or has that social contract expired? I ask sincerely, because I see this play out in both directions. Companies that speak the language of family and purpose, then conduct layoffs with 20-minute Zoom calls. And employees who demand development, flexibility, and care, while treating the job as a stepping stone they will leave the moment a better offer arrives. I do not think either side is simply wrong. The contract genuinely changed. The question is whether both parties have updated their expectations to match. My own view is that loyalty between organizations and people still exists, it has just become shorter in duration and more explicitly conditional. That is probably honest. But it has costs that neither side tends to name clearly. What does your experience tell you? Is the loyalty question still meaningful, or has it just become a recruitment talking point?

Remote work is actually worse for career growth for most people

Remote work has made a lot of people more comfortable. I am not sure it has made most people more successful. For experienced professionals with established networks and well-calibrated skills, remote is often a genuine upgrade. But for people early in their careers, learning how work actually happens, building the relationships that open doors, absorbing culture and craft through proximity, I think we have traded something significant for flexibility. The professional development that happens in hallways, lunch tables, and overhearing how senior people handle difficult situations is not easily replicated in a Zoom call. And the visibility that drives early career advancement requires being seen. I say this not to argue against remote work, but to push back on the idea that it is equally good for everyone at every stage. For some people, the right career move right now might be going somewhere they can be in a room with people who are better than them.

The future of venture capital funding for early-stage startups

The vintage years for early-stage venture capital are shifting, and most founders are still operating on the assumptions of 2020. Here is what I expect: the gap between pre-seed and Series A will keep widening. More capital will concentrate at the very early stage, where AI has made prototypes cheaper to build, and at growth stage, where metrics are undeniable. The middle round, the traditional seed for companies with some traction but not enough to command a large A, is going to get harder to raise. This means the companies that will raise well in the next three years are the ones that either move fast enough to skip the difficult middle, or build enough revenue to make the middle irrelevant. The playbook of raising a seed on narrative and a pitch deck is becoming a Series A requirement. Founders who understand this earlier than their peers will have a meaningful structural advantage.

The idea that revenue growth always means a business is healthy

Revenue growth is the metric most founders celebrate. It is also one of the most misleading signals of business health on its own. I have seen companies triple their revenue in 18 months and quietly become less viable in the process. Revenue growth that requires proportionally more capital, more headcount, and more operational complexity to sustain is not scaling, it is a treadmill running faster. The number that matters alongside revenue is unit economics: what does it cost to acquire a customer, and what do they actually return over their lifetime? A business with flat revenue and improving unit economics is in a fundamentally better position than one with hockey-stick growth and deteriorating margins. Revenue answers the question: are people buying? It does not answer: is this a business that works? Those are two very different questions and they deserve separate answers.

How to reduce API response times in a production app

Slow API responses are almost always caused by the same five things. Here is where to look, in order. 1. N+1 queries. If your API makes a database call inside a loop, you are likely making hundreds of queries where one would do. Add query logging and look for repeated patterns. 2. Missing indexes. Check your query execution plans. A missing index on a frequently-filtered column can turn a fast query into a slow one at scale. 3. Synchronous work that should be async. Sending emails, generating thumbnails, and calling third-party APIs inside a request handler all add latency that should happen in a background job. 4. No caching layer. Identical requests for the same data should not hit the database twice in the same minute. 5. Payload size. Strip fields the client does not need. Serialization time adds up faster than most people expect. Investigate in this order. The first two fix most production slowdowns without touching the architecture.

The energy cost of AI model training is growing rapidly

Training a single large language model can consume more electricity than 100 US households use in an entire year. That number was startling two years ago. Now it describes models that are already considered mid-tier. The newest frontier models require significantly more, and we are training more of them, more often, for more use cases. This is not an argument against AI development. It is an argument for taking the infrastructure question seriously much earlier than most companies currently do. The teams building AI applications in 2025 that are not thinking about energy, cooling, and compute efficiency are building on an assumption, that the cost structure will stay manageable, that may not hold. The technical debt in AI right now is increasingly physical, not just in the code.

The idea that great leaders are always available to their teams

The best leaders I have worked with were not always available. They were reliably available at the right moments, and deliberately unavailable at others. The always-available leader trains their team to stop thinking for themselves. Every decision gets escalated because the leader has created a gravitational pull toward themselves. The team gets slower and more dependent over time, not faster and more capable. Availability is not a proxy for support. It can be the opposite of it. The leaders who built the most capable teams I have seen made themselves accessible for decisions that genuinely required their input, and made themselves absent for decisions their team was capable of making alone. Being reachable 24/7 is not a leadership virtue. It is usually a boundary problem dressed up as dedication.

How to decide when to delegate versus when to do something yourself

Most leaders delegate based on urgency and trust. That leads to a predictable failure: they keep work they should give away and give away work they should keep. A cleaner model has three variables. Growth potential: does doing this work develop someone on the team in a meaningful way? If yes, it is a candidate for delegation regardless of how well you could do it yourself. Decision reversibility: if this goes poorly, how hard is it to correct? High-stakes, low-reversibility decisions often warrant your direct involvement, regardless of trust level. Context density: does the person need information that only you have, or that would take longer to transfer than to act on? If yes, doing it yourself may be genuinely faster, but only this time, and you should fix the context gap. When all three favor delegation, you should not be touching the work. When all three cut the other way, staying involved is not micromanagement. It is judgment.

The myth that you need to feel ready before starting something

Waiting to feel ready is not preparation. It is postponement. The feeling of readiness almost never arrives before the action. It arrives after, sometimes well after. The people who built things they are proud of did not feel prepared when they started. They started, and then gradually felt less unprepared. This is not a call to be reckless. It is a call to be honest about what readiness actually is. Readiness is not a feeling. It is a threshold of sufficient capability to begin learning through action. Most people cross that threshold long before they acknowledge it. If you have been waiting to feel confident enough, informed enough, or ready enough, you probably already are. The gap between where you are and where you need to be to start is almost always smaller than it feels from the inside.

The value of learning one hard skill in the next year

A year from now, the people who spent 2025 learning one genuinely hard skill will be in a different conversation than the people who did not. Not because of the credential. Because of the confidence. There is something that shifts when you work through something difficult and come out the other side capable of something you could not do before. It changes the way you think about what else is possible. The skill itself almost does not matter as much as the experience of learning it, the patience it requires, the discomfort it produces, and the clarity it eventually delivers. One hard thing. Twelve months. That is enough to change your relationship with difficulty entirely. What is the skill you have been putting off?

How people decompress after a hard work week

What does your Friday evening actually look like? I ask because I have noticed that what I say I do (decompress, disconnect, enjoy the weekend) and what I actually do (check one more thing, catch up on what I missed, feel vaguely unsettled) are pretty different. I am genuinely curious what works for people. Not productivity routines. Just the actual thing that helps you feel like the week is done. For me lately it has been a walk before I close the laptop. Not after. Before, so the transition feels deliberate. What is yours?

Taking a proper lunch break and how rare that feels

I took a real lunch break today. Not eating at my desk while answering Slack. Not a working lunch with a call scheduled. An actual break, food, a short walk, no phone for most of it. It lasted about 40 minutes and I felt vaguely guilty the entire time, which says something I am still thinking about. I came back to my desk noticeably clearer. The thing I had been stuck on before lunch took about eight minutes. I do not think this is a productivity tip, exactly. I think it is just a reminder that the hours between breaks are shaped by the breaks themselves. I am going to try to remember that tomorrow. Probably will not. But today was good.

Launching a product and immediately finding a bug on the homepage

We launched at 9am. By 9:07 someone had DMed me to let me know the sign-up button did not work. I spent the next four minutes publicly thanking them for the feedback while privately understanding what it feels like to age rapidly. We fixed it by 9:14. No one outside of five people will ever know it happened. Those five people are now my most loyal users, which I suspect is because shared trauma builds community. The homepage looks great now. I have refreshed it approximately 200 times to confirm this. Launching is just a series of moments where you discover everything you did not test. The secret is that this is true for everyone. You just do not always see the 9:07 part.

Unnecessary meetings in corporate culture

I attended a meeting last week to discuss the agenda for a meeting next week. To be fair, the agenda meeting only ran 45 minutes over. I think we can all agree that the real tragedy would have been going into the actual meeting underprepared. The funniest part is that both meetings had the same people in them, people who, if left alone for 30 minutes, would have just solved the problem. But we did not do that. We scheduled a thing to plan the thing. Corporate calendar culture has achieved something genuinely impressive: it has made busyness feel indistinguishable from productivity, and meetings feel indistinguishable from work. They are not the same.

How to give feedback that people actually act on

Most feedback fails not because it is too harsh or too soft. It fails because it mixes up three different things that should never be in the same conversation. Observation: what you actually saw or heard. Specific, factual, not interpretive. Impact: what effect it had, on the work, the team, the outcome. Not on your feelings about the person. Direction: what a different approach might look like going forward. Concrete and optional, not prescriptive. When you blend these, when observation becomes judgment, or direction becomes criticism, the person receiving feedback stops processing the content and starts defending themselves. Separate the three. Give them in order. Pause between each one. The conversation will take slightly longer. The change in behavior will happen significantly faster.

How to write a cold email that actually gets a response

Most cold emails fail in the first sentence. Here is how to fix the whole thing. 1. Open with them, not you. The first line should reference something specific about their work, company, or recent public statement. Specificity signals you are not using a template. 2. State your ask in sentence two. Do not build to it. Busy people scan emails to find the ask, if it is buried, the email gets deleted. 3. Make the ask small. A 15-minute call is easier to say yes to than a full meeting. Remove as much friction as possible. 4. One paragraph max. If your email needs to scroll, it is too long. 5. End with a simple question or a clear link. Give them one action, not three options. The best cold email I ever received was four sentences. I responded within the hour. Length is not respect, clarity is.

The myth that the best ideas come from brainstorming sessions

For years I ran brainstorming sessions the way I was taught to: whiteboard, sticky notes, open floor, no bad ideas. We generated a lot of content. We almost never generated a good idea. The best idea we had in a three-year stretch came from a conversation two people had over lunch that nobody planned. One of them sent a short message to the group that night. By morning we had shifted direction. I started paying attention after that. The ideas that actually moved things forward almost always came from someone thinking alone first, then testing the idea in a small conversation, then bringing it to the group. Brainstorming is good for refining ideas. It is rarely where ideas are born. The research on this has been clear for decades. We just like the ritual too much to question it.

The moment I realized I was managing instead of leading

I used to end every week reviewing task lists. Not strategy. Not people. Task lists. I would go line by line through a project tracker, reassigning deadlines and flagging blockers, feeling productive in a way that I now recognize was mostly anxiety dressed up as diligence. The moment I noticed something was off came during a one-on-one with someone on my team. She was clearly capable of more. I was clearly using her for less. When I asked her what she wanted to work on next, she paused for a second and said: "I did not think I was allowed to have an opinion about that." I had built a team that waited for instructions instead of bringing ideas, and I had done it completely without meaning to. Management that is really just control does not look like control. It looks like being on top of things.

Launching a hiring platform for startups; most startup hires fail within 18 months

Studies consistently show that more than half of startup hires do not make it past 18 months. That number is not a talent problem. It is a process problem. Early-stage companies hire fast under pressure, skip the alignment conversations that matter, and discover the mismatch six months in when it is expensive to fix. The best hiring in early-stage companies looks nothing like enterprise recruiting. It is faster, more iterative, and far more dependent on cultural and mission fit than credentials. Today we launched a platform built for exactly that context, designed for startups hiring their first 50 people, where every decision carries outsized weight. If you are currently hiring or will be in the next quarter, we are onboarding a small founding cohort this month. Details in the comments.

Launching a tool that helps teams run better async meetings

Within five years, synchronous meetings will be the exception in high-performing teams, not the default. Not because people do not like talking to each other. Because the teams that figure out structured async first will simply move faster, hire globally without friction, and protect the deep work time that actually produces results. The bottleneck right now is not willingness. It is tooling that makes async feel as clear and accountable as a live conversation. Today we launched something designed to close that gap. It is a way to run structured async meetings, with decisions, owners, and follow-ups, that does not get lost in a thread. If your team is navigating this shift, I would genuinely love your feedback in the first week. Link in the comments.

How to build a strong professional community around a shared interest

The strongest professional communities I have seen share three things, and most people only focus on one. Anchor: A clear reason to exist that is not "networking." The communities that last are built around a shared problem, craft, or ambition, not just job titles. Rhythm: A predictable cadence of interaction. Weekly threads, monthly calls, annual gatherings. Without rhythm, communities quietly fade into group chats no one opens. Memory: Ways to surface and celebrate what the community has built together. Case studies, shared wins, referencing past conversations. This is what creates the sense that belonging here means something. Most community builders nail the anchor. Few sustain the rhythm. Almost none invest in the memory layer. If your community has stalled, the missing piece is usually the one furthest down this list.

The value of staying in touch with people you no longer work with

Three years ago I got a message from someone I had worked with briefly at a company I left before it became anything notable. They were not reaching out for a favor. They just wanted to share that something I had said in a meeting in 2019 had stuck with them and changed how they ran their own team. I had completely forgotten the meeting. I think about that a lot when I consider whether staying in touch with former colleagues is worth the effort. It usually is, not because of what it might lead to, but because the relationships you build at work are often the ones that quietly shape the way both people think for years afterward. The professional network that matters most is not the largest one. It is the one that is real.

Launching a newsletter, unsure if it will get traction

Six weeks ago I sent my first newsletter to 47 people. This week I sent it to 412. I have no idea if that is good or slow. I have nothing to compare it to except advice from people who started in a different era of attention. What I do know: the posts that grew the list fastest were not the polished ones. They were the ones where I shared something I was genuinely unsure about, like this. I am still figuring out the cadence, the format, and honestly whether anyone cares about the specific intersection of topics I write about. If you have built an audience through a newsletter, what was the thing that actually moved the needle for you in the first 90 days?

How do you decide when to quit a project

At what point does persistence become stubbornness? I have been sitting with this question for a while. Most advice tells you to keep going, that results take time, that consistency wins. But I have also watched teams spend two years on something the market made clear it did not want, after month four. The people who kept going were not more disciplined. They were just more reluctant to call it. I think the honest answer involves asking: am I still learning, or am I just hoping? Those are very different reasons to continue. How do you personally decide when a project has had its fair chance?

How to grow a LinkedIn audience from zero

Growing a LinkedIn audience from zero in 90 days does not require luck. It requires a repeatable system. Here is what actually works: 1. Comment on 5 posts daily from people in your niche before you publish anything. This seeds your name in the right feeds. 2. Write one post per week, not seven. Make each one earn its place. 3. Reply to every comment within the first two hours. Early engagement velocity is what the algorithm uses to decide how far to push the post. 4. Send a personal connection request to everyone who comments. One post can generate 20 warm connections. 5. Repurpose your best post after 30 days. Audiences turn over faster than you think. The shortcut is doing the unsexy steps consistently. Start with step one tomorrow.

Posting more on LinkedIn does not lead to more growth

Posting every day is not a growth strategy. It is a visibility strategy, and those are not the same thing. I have seen accounts with 3 posts a month consistently outgrow accounts posting daily. The difference is not frequency. It is the depth of the conversation each post starts. Algorithms reward engagement signals, not publishing volume. One post that generates 40 comments beats seven posts that get silence. If your content is not sparking real replies, more of it will not fix that. Focus less on how often you post. Focus more on whether what you post is worth responding to.

post: trying to decide between hiring a generalist or specialist for an early-stage role

Early-stage hire coming up and I'm genuinely torn. The role needs someone who can own strategy and execution, but the volume of work skews toward execution right now. Generalist who grows with the role, or specialist who delivers immediately and we figure out growth later? For those who've made this call: what did you learn from it?

post: how changing labor regulations are affecting hiring decisions

Labor regulation is changing faster than most hiring processes can adapt. Regardless of where you stand on specific policies, the operational reality for employers is clear: compliance costs are rising, classification rules are tightening, and the cost of getting it wrong is significant. Small and mid-size companies are feeling this most acutely, they lack the legal infrastructure of large enterprises but face the same regulatory exposure. Practically speaking, workforce planning now requires a level of legal and policy awareness that wasn't typical even five years ago. How is your organization keeping up?

post: four-day work week is not the productivity win people claim

The four-day work week research is more conditional than the headlines suggest. Most cited studies involve knowledge workers with high autonomy and no hard output quotas. In those contexts, yes, compressed schedules often hold or improve output. But many roles don't fit that model. Customer-facing teams, manufacturing, healthcare, and services with time-sensitive delivery can't just redistribute hours without real trade-offs. The four-day week isn't wrong. It's being oversold as universal when it's actually contextual. What's your experience, does it translate cleanly to your industry?

post: why cash flow matters more than profit for early-stage companies

A profitable company can still go bankrupt. This surprises a lot of first-time founders. Profit is an accounting concept, it lives on the income statement. Cash is what pays salaries on Friday. If you invoice in Net 60 but your rent is due on the 1st, the gap between "profitable" and "solvent" becomes very real, very fast. Early-stage companies almost always die from cash timing problems, not from bad products. Understanding your burn rate and receivables cycle is more important than chasing your next revenue milestone.

post: why most companies are still not getting value from AI tools they've bought

Most AI tool adoption fails the same way: the software gets purchased, a few people use it inconsistently, and six months later it's a line item no one can justify. The problem is rarely the tool. It's the workflow. AI amplifies whatever process it's plugged into. A broken or undefined process doesn't become efficient with AI, it becomes a faster broken process. The companies seeing real returns aren't the ones who bought the best tools. They're the ones who mapped their workflows before buying anything.

post: why leaders who avoid conflict are actually creating more of it

Conflict-avoidant leaders don't reduce tension. They redistribute it. When a leader refuses to name the problem in the room, someone else carries it, usually the most senior person willing to say the thing, or the team member least able to afford the fallout. Avoidance is a delegation of discomfort. The teams that handle disagreement well almost always have a leader who modeled it first. Not by being combative, by being willing to name what's actually happening and discuss it directly. Conflict that gets addressed costs a meeting. Conflict that gets avoided costs trust.

post: on feeling behind peers who seem to be moving faster

Comparison is almost always a data problem. You're measuring someone else's highlight reel against your full workweek, including the slow days, the detours, the attempts that didn't land. The people who seem ahead aren't on a different path. They're just further along a leg of it that you haven't reached yet. Slow and consistent still compounds.

post: working from home on a Friday afternoon

Friday afternoon energy is its own category. Not quite weekend. Not quite work. The best ideas sometimes show up in that window, when you've stopped trying and the pressure's off. Hope your week ended on a good note.

post: how to give feedback that people actually act on

Most feedback fails before it's delivered. Here's what makes the difference: 1. Tie it to a specific moment, not a pattern. "In yesterday's meeting" lands better than "you always." 2. Describe the impact, not the intention. What you saw, not what you assume they meant. 3. Ask before advising. "What would you do differently?" often surfaces a better answer than the one you planned to give. 4. End with the next opportunity, not the last mistake. Feedback is a skill. Most people were never taught it. That's why so much of it gets ignored.

post: the moment I realized I was managing my team's fear instead of their work

Six months into my first management role, I noticed my one-on-ones had a pattern. Every conversation started with me reassuring people. "You're doing great." "The leadership team isn't worried." "This project is fine." I thought I was being supportive. Then a team member told me: "I don't actually know what I should be working on next." I'd been so focused on keeping morale up that I forgot to give people clarity. Fear management and people management feel similar from the inside. The difference shows up in output. The fix was simple: replace weekly reassurance with a shared priority list. Give people something concrete to point to instead of just my word. Morale followed. It usually does when people know where they stand.

post: launching a free AI writing tool for founders who hate writing

Most founders are brilliant at building. Few enjoy writing about it. That gap costs them: investors who don't get it, customers who don't find them, hires who don't join. We built a tool that turns a rough idea into a polished LinkedIn post in under 60 seconds, no prompting expertise needed. It's free. No account required to try it. [link]

post: celebrating people who mentor others quietly, without recognition

Some of the best mentors I know have never held an official title. They answer the 6pm Slack message. They forward the job posting without being asked. They remember your name when you feel invisible in the room. They don't do it for recognition, they do it because someone once did it for them. If someone has quietly shaped your career, this is a good week to tell them.

post: what makes people actually stay engaged in remote teams

Remote teams that perform well share one trait: psychological safety. Not Slack channels. Not async docs. Not even standups. When people feel safe to raise a concern or admit they're stuck, productivity follows naturally. What's one thing your team does that makes people feel like they can actually speak up?

Create a LinkedIn post about overcoming common sales objections

Tired of hearing 'I need to think about it'? Objections aren't deal-breakers; they're invitations for deeper understanding.

Create a humorous post about the Monday morning meeting that could have been an email

Kicking off Monday with a meeting that truly embodied the spirit of 'this could have been an email.' My inbox feels neglected. 📧

Write a LinkedIn post about overcoming a common sales objection about pricing by focusing on long-term ROI instead of upfront cost.

Ever faced 'Your price is too high?' It's a common sales hurdle. What if we shifted the conversation from upfront cost to long-term return on investment?

Create a LinkedIn post about overcoming career plateaus and continuing professional growth

A career plateau is a signal, not a failure. It means you have mastered your current reality. Don't wait for a title to lead. What is your next move?