Last month, I traveled through three countries and multiple time zones, packing investor meetings, customer dinners, panels, and leadership sessions into just 10 days.
Like many founders, I wore the schedule as a badge of honor. If I could keep up,…
One of the things that continues to surprise me about executive coaching is how often conversations about work become conversations about family.
Clients rarely come in wanting to talk about their parents. They want to decide whether to take a promotion, how to navigate a difficult boss, become more effective leaders, or determine why they’re burned out. Family history almost never makes the agenda. And yet, more often than not, that’s where we end up.
Not because their parents are an active problem, but because many of the assumptions shaping our professional lives were formed long before we ever had careers.
What kind of a person does this make me?
I was reminded of this recently while working with a client who was wrestling with whether to accept a promotion. On paper, it seemed like an easy decision. The role was more senior, more interesting, and aligned with where she said she wanted her career to go. It came with more influence, greater responsibility, and a meaningful increase in compensation. There wasn’t much downside. But she couldn’t bring herself to say yes.
As we talked, she kept returning to the same question: What kind of person does this make me?
At first, I assumed we were talking about work-life balance. But the longer we sat with it, the more it became clear that something else was underneath her hesitation. Accepting the promotion felt like a betrayal of some internal standard she couldn’t quite name.
I asked where she thought that standard came from. She paused for a moment before telling me about her parents.
An inherited blueprint
Her father had built a successful career and worked long hours. Her mother worked part time and somehow managed to be everywhere at once. She volunteered at school, remembered every birthday, drove to every activity, and created the kind of home that felt calm, predictable, and deeply attended to. My client spoke about her childhood with enormous warmth. She felt incredibly lucky to have been raised that way.
The interesting part was that she wasn’t trying to reject either of her parents’ examples. She loved her career. She had worked hard to build it and found genuine meaning in it. She had no desire to step away from it.
But somewhere along the way, she had also absorbed an idea about what a successful family looked like. Every late meeting made her wonder if she was letting her children down. Every career opportunity carried an unexpected emotional weight. Without realizing it, she was evaluating her own life against a blueprint she had inherited rather than one she had consciously chosen.
As she talked, I found myself thinking less about her parents and more about the invisible standards we inherit without ever examining.
One of the things coaching has taught me is that we inherit far more than our parents’ values. We inherit their definitions.
Their definition of success, of responsibility, of what hard work requires. Their definition of what it means to be dependable, ambitious, generous, or “good enough.”
The remarkable thing about these definitions is that they rarely announce themselves as inherited. They simply become the water we swim in. We don’t think, This is how my family understood success. We think, This is what success is. Once you begin looking for these inherited definitions, you see them everywhere.
The executive who cannot delegate because competence became synonymous with doing everything herself.
The physician who feels guilty taking a vacation because productivity was always the measure of worth in his family.
The founder who wears exhaustion almost as proof of commitment because that’s what dedication looked like growing up.
The leader who hesitates before speaking in meetings because confidence was mistaken for arrogance in her childhood.
On the surface, these look like workplace challenges. We call them perfectionism, burnout, impostor syndrome, or difficulty setting boundaries. Sometimes they are, but just as often they’re something else. They’re inherited beliefs colliding with the realities of modern work.
What struck me most about my client’s story wasn’t the difference between her life and her mother’s. Every generation faces constraints the previous one didn’t. Her mother likely gave up professional opportunities my client now has. My client is navigating a workplace that follows her home in ways her mother’s never did. They were solving different problems. The conflict came from assuming that because she valued what her mother created, she needed to re-create the exact circumstances in which it had been created.
When beliefs feel like reality
I wonder how often we make the same mistake in our careers. How many of us equate long hours with commitment because that’s what we watched growing up? How many assume leadership means having all the answers because that’s what authority looked like in our families? How many pursue stability, prestige, or achievement without ever stopping to ask whether those goals actually belong to us?
These questions matter because inherited definitions are remarkably difficult to see. They don’t feel like beliefs. They feel like reality.
That’s why coaching conversations that begin with promotions or difficult colleagues often end somewhere entirely different.
People think they’re deciding between two jobs. But they’re actually deciding whether they’re willing to question a definition of success they’ve carried for decades.
For my client, the breakthrough came when we stopped talking about whether she should accept the promotion and started talking about what she was actually trying to preserve.
It wasn’t a particular work schedule, or the number of hours she spent at home. It wasn’t even her mother’s life. What she wanted was something much deeper. She wanted her children to feel known. She wanted them to feel remembered, supported, and important. She wanted to create the same emotional experience she had growing up.
Once we separated the value from the way it had been expressed, the decision became much clearer.
I’ve started to think that this may be one of the most important developmental tasks of adulthood. At some point, we have to distinguish between the values we’ve inherited and the forms those values happened to take in our families.
Maybe your parents taught you that commitment matters. That doesn’t necessarily mean answering emails at 10 p.m.
Maybe they taught you that excellence matters. That doesn’t require proving your worth through constant overwork.
Maybe they taught you that family comes first. That doesn’t mean re-creating the exact rhythms of your childhood.
The forms change. The values often don’t.
The strongest leaders I’ve worked with aren’t the ones who reject everything they learned from the families who raised them. They’re the ones who become curious enough to examine it. They ask themselves which beliefs still serve them, which belonged to a different time, and which they want to carry forward intentionally.
Because leadership isn’t just about making better decisions. It’s about recognizing the invisible scripts you’ve been following all along—and deciding whether they’re still the ones you want to live by.
For many people, the hardest part of the working world is the personal interactions. Networking and meetings can be exhausting, particularly if you’re an introvert. If small talk is a form of torture and you walk away drained after interacting with ot…
A recent Wall Street Journal story confirmed what you already know: Everything is being recorded. Meetings, one-on-ones, hallway chats, and even dates live on in your permanent file somewhere in Otter, Zoom, or Granola. The technology lets you relive …
“It’s all in your head.”
By the time many people with functional neurological disorder arrive in our clinic, they have heard these five words more times than they can count. They are told their brain scan was normal. Their electroencephalogram, a t…
Below, Matt Bloom shares five key insights from his new book, Lasting Wellbeing: Science-Based Practices for Tranquility, Authenticity, Meaning, and Joy.
Matt is a social psychologist and emeritus professor of business at the University of Not…
So far, 530A tax-advantaged investment accounts for kids, also known as “Trump accounts,” have had a successful debut.
As of July 27, just over three weeks after the accounts went live, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent reported that 7 m…
Below, Owen Fitzpatrick shares five key insights from his new book, Inner Propaganda: Leading Hearts and Minds Through Turbulent Times.
Fitzpatrick is a social psychologist, behavioral change expert, and international speaker who has spent three de…
Employees today are stressed, angry and sad, and they’re experiencing these emotions more than even before the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Gallup. A big reason for stress is a sense of job insecurity, according to research published by the A…
The word “agentic” is being pushed by every AI company right now, and—for the most part—it’s unclear what “agents” can do. I’ve seen ads for things like “sales agents” (automating outreach) or “coding agents” (deploying software bug fixes). To a solopreneur, that type of agentic work seems irrelevant.
Part of the confusion is that many of the examples are targeted at enterprise companies. The messaging paints a picture of hundreds of autonomous agents working around the clock.
But an agent can be much smaller than that. It can handle a specific task, in the background or on a schedule, while you work on something else.
What makes something an AI agent
An AI agent can follow a series of steps to complete a task, using your tools on your behalf. What separates it from a chatbot is the interaction. With a chatbot (like Claude or ChatGPT), you’re having a back-and-forth interaction. Agents start autonomously on a schedule or a trigger, instead of waiting for you to type, following pre-written instructions.
Agents can take different paths, so your instructions can be nuanced, such as “In scenario A, take this action; in scenario B, take a different action.”
Running unattended and running unsupervised are two different things. AI supplements my work, but doesn’t replace me. I review any agent output before sending it out into the world.
Where agents make sense for a solo business
The best work you can give an agent is recurring and follows a specific set of rules. The whole point is that it can run without needing your input, which makes it good for operational tasks.
Work that runs on a schedule. Weekly and monthly tasks, like updating a project management tool or compiling some metrics. I have an agent checking Google Analytics for my website and writing the results to a spreadsheet.
Work that needs triage. Claude sorts my inbox and applies labels, then drafts a first reply where one is needed. I have very specific parameters for this, and nothing goes out without me looking at it first.
Work that needs research. An agent could create a list of prospective clients for you, or do some background research for a project (the kind of thing that usually has 18 tabs open). An agent can do that type of task while you’re working on something else and hand you the results.
Work that needs cleanup. Everyone has the type of project that’s necessary, yet tedious. For me, it was compressing more than 100 images in a folder and applying a specific name to each. An AI agent did this for me.
Always review the results
Handing off work to an AI agent moves your job from doing the task to scoping it and checking it. A task with a very narrow scope—doing a single thing—is easier to manage, because you can see at a glance whether the results are right. If it’s a task you’ll have the agent repeat often, and the output feels off, update the instructions.
Before you set up an agent to do something complex, run a much smaller test. When I had an agent clean up files for me, I tested it with a few files before letting it make a large number of modifications.
An agent gives me back the time I would have spent on the task itself. Yes, I have to spend time initially writing instructions (the scope), but if it’s a repeatable task, the time saved is recouped quickly. Once it’s up and running, I may only spend a few minutes reviewing an agent’s output rather than an hour on the task itself.
