 is a cognitive bias that makes us think that most people are like us, that they share our beliefs, values and behaviours. We flock to those who reinforce our views in order to be accepted, to feel safe, and to improve our self-esteem. We're fed information by social media algorithms that marries with our world-view and we gravitate towards news that confirms our existing beliefs. Thus, we rarely interact with those who clash with us, encountering them only when they're used as a pawn in our discourse.

One effect of this bias is that we view these 

 as defective. We say, “Who on earth reads this shit?” or “Who the hell voted for them?”. We consider them less educated, less intelligent, and driven by inferior values. We bolster our self-esteem by mocking and affirming our superiority over them.

This polarisation prevents constructive and nuanced discourse. It stops us from trying to understand why people hold their views. We assume they are inferior, and we ignore the huge impact experiences have on how people respond to circumstances.

Have you ever seen anybody change another's opinion by telling them how stupid they are? And yet it's the continual tactic of those who dehumanise anti-vaxxers, the no-boundaries, pro-EU remainers who think all who voted for Brexit are racists, and those who can't understand why 'defund the police' is a terrible slogan for trying to convince people that change is needed.

Why do people hold certain views? And why do they hold them so strongly? Digging deeper on these positions that so divide public opinion, we find that views form on very shallow, often emotional, foundations. Sound bites on social media or in the news trigger strong emotional responses—and are designed to do so—cementing the person in their position and eroding any desire to understand the topic deeply. We surrender to emotion and wallow in the safe bolstering of our existing views.

Consider Brexit, the UK referendum to leave the European Union. European politics, trade, and economics are complex beasts. Experts in these fields admitted that they didn't understand the ramifications of Britain leaving the EU. How could we expect the public to know what to do?

Both the Remain and Leave sides campaigned on emotional levels. There were claims of extra money for the NHS, increased immigration and loss of 'our jobs', trade routes grinding to a halt and no imported food, no more 'regulations' for businesses, and so on. The media painted pictures of Armageddon, empty shops, an invasion of foreigners and no jobs for the 'true' British citizen. They latched onto peoples' fears, and their identity, to get them onside. The resulting strength of feeling was in stark contrast to the knowledge people had of the issues at hand.

In the wake of the referendum, a team from the National Theatre of Great Britain spoke to people of all ages from across the UK to hear their views on what had happened. They 

, weaving the interview recordings into a debate between the people of the UK.

The contrast between strength of feeling and lack of knowledge was soon obvious. The director, Rufus Norris, said, “they’re all talking about a subject about which there isn’t one person in the country who knows fuck all about it. Most people, like me, can say what they think about Brexit, or European funding or immigration control and all of it will be what we've read”. And yet there was so much passion. Why?

People were angry. Emotions were already running high. Brexit became a vehicle for their existing fears. And both sides were quick to damn the other: 'leavers' tagged as xenophobes, 'remainers' as scaremongers. There was little attempt to understand the other's perspective. Any further conversation was bitter and only entrenched each side in their position. Nobody wanted to understand anybody else. You were a 'remainer' or a 'leaver' and there was no room for nuance.

We need more human music in all our debates.

Caleb Wallace founded the 'San Angelo Freedom Defenders' with a mission to “end Covid tyranny”. He organised frequent 'Freedom Rallies', railing against vaccines and mask-wearing. He died from Covid-19 in August this year. The responses to his death on social media are an example of how polarisation can suck the humanity from people.

There's no doubt he contributed to the spread of misinformation, putting lives at risk. And his actions contributed to his own death by not defending himself against the disease, but also by the treatment he self-administered: the parasite infestation medicine, ivermectin, which comes with no evidence to show it prevents Covid-19 or its symptoms.

The criticism of his rallies and his views shouldn't be up for debate. More worrying is the immediate and ecstatic celebration of his demise. Some examples: “Got what he deserved”, “He NEEDS to go to his maker”, and “I have to say my ability to drum up sympathy for these people is at zero”.

The last one is telling. The other side no longer consists of people we care about, and can show even an ounce of sympathy for, even when their beliefs have caused their own death. Yes they were misinformed, yes they were wrong, yes these beliefs have caused the deaths of others, and yes here we are celebrating how wrong they were and how right we are. Are we ready to celebrate people's deaths now because they have a different set of beliefs to us? Is the 

Caleb wasn't an evil person. I doubt his intentions were to cause as many deaths as possible. The self-defeating nature of that mission would show otherwise. Digging into the 'freedom' rhetoric and the scepticism of science and vaccines uncovers some valid reasons for anti-vaxxers to start on the path they go down. Caleb's ended with him dying from the disease he spent the last months of his life fighting against on the stage, and then in the hospital.

It's vital that we stop this dehumanisation of the other side. We must introduce curiosity and respect. We should seek to understand, to assume that 

, to accept we may be wrong, and to empathise. If we don't, the other side won't, and nobody's opinion will shift–the gap will continue to grow larger.

Only when we understand why people have the views they do can we begin to have real discussions. Engage with them. The answer is rarely as simple as you're wrong and I'm right. Most of the big topics that cause polarisation are complex and nuanced and need time and deep understanding. For this we need a conversation, with curiosity and respect. To look for the human music.

The sound of empathy

Getting things done in a complex organisation can be difficult. Legacy processes change over time and documentation becomes outdated quickly, causing friction.

We jump at the chance of making things better for everyone. We have identified an opportunity to streamline our processes. But we've got a deadline... so we look for a workaround, a quick fix. We dodge the obstacle and carry on with our work.

You reassure yourself that it's only temporary and someone is already addressing the underlying issue. But deep down you know that this workaround will soon become 'the way'.

Let's talk about hiring. We have an impending interview and realise that we don't have access to the candidate's CV. It should be attached to the interview invite, you think. The interview is in 30 minutes so you fire off a message to your recruiter asking for the CV. 10 minutes later you receive it and quickly prepare.

Before your next interview, you recall this issue and ask the recruiter for the CV in advance. The workaround is now the process. Although you believe attaching the CV to the interview invite is better, the team is too busy and understaffed to implement it soon.

This temporary solution has now become the norm. When you coach new interviewers, you'll explain that you need to ping the recruiter to get the CV – this is now 'the way'. Interviewers are now trained to add an unnecessary step to an already cumbersome process.

The big problem here isn't the extra step for interviewers. It's the message it sends to the company. Through no explicit choice, we've agreed that 'good enough' is okay. Excellence is optional. As long as we can get things done somehow then we're doing alright.

The result is a multitude of hotch-potch processes, full of friction. There is no clear direction or desire for excellence. Things evolve out of necessity, not design.

The result is a culture of papering over the cracks. We can't make our experiences or our colleagues' experiences amazing because we lack time. Because of this, many people still encounter problems at work and come up with workarounds. We don't improve.

Excellence shouldn't be optional. It underpins all our work. We should stop ignoring problems and work on solving them. Let's understand why these problems occur and invest time in improving them. Yes it takes time up-front, but this is an investment not a cost. Slowing down now will mean a more efficient workplace for the many who come after you trying to do the same things. A place where people feel happy and accomplished, not hindered by unnecessary obstacles and delays.

Fixing the root causes and changing things in this way is hard. It's time consuming, and often comes at a trade-off against the 'day-job'. To make a difference, we can set examples and reward behaviors that help our colleagues. We should incentivize always attaching the CV to the invite, rather than finding the slower workaround.

It is vital to create a culture where we expect excellence. We need champions to set examples across the organisation and we should hold ourselves to account. Next time you find yourself working around a problem by escalation, or trying to find out who the gatekeeper is, stop and think if fixing the root cause would be the better option. Because in the end, excellence is about putting in the time and effort to do the right things.

Papering over the cracks

 from Cord on his Best Work podcast. I've done a few things like this before (including a host who came to chat to me, left, emailed saying he loved it and couldn't wait to see how people responded to it, then ghosted me...) but this was the most enjoyable so far.

While the topic was 'Best Work', the conversation was pretty freeform and we discussed all sorts of topics. We covered Stoicism, death, the regret minimisation framework, relationships, how to make decisions, sleep, and loads more.

In addition to the Spotify link above, you can 

 (and watch a video of us if for some reason you want to do that).

Appearance on the Best Work Podcast

It's hard to muster the energy to write this. Reading, talking, and writing about Covid is so boring. I'm fed up with it, of navigating statistics, reading policy changes, constantly thinking about my behaviours, of worrying about my family.

It's horrendous, the deaths, the disabilities. 100 deaths a day, still, 2 years in. Children being sent to school without any protection, tens of thousands about to suffer from long Covid.

We're used to it though. Numbed. It's just so boring. It's clichéd. Repetitive. I've got nothing new to say, I'm not contributing anything to the discourse. I'm not doing anything useful, like calling out failed policies or dissecting the latest science and statistics. I'm just like all of you, tired and beaten down.

My son was born on the original 'freedom day', June 21. We extended our personal lockdown until his immune system developed and Daisy could get double vaccinated after delaying due to pregnancy. While everybody was enjoying pubs, clubs, gigs, festivals,

 things, we stayed home. The fomo absent from the nationwide lockdown was back.

The Ibiza trip we had last week was the first time we let our guard down. Daisy, Elvis and I went away for a few days, then they left me for my mate's 40th party in a boutique hotel for the weekend. It was fun, a normal holiday. I came back on Monday, and my 2-day test on Wednesday came back positive.

Our Scotland trip this week has been cancelled. We're isolating again. It's disappointing, but mostly just so boring.

Update: I took another PCR test on the day I received my positive result which has come back negative. My lateral flow tests have been negative throughout. However, I still have to self-isolate.

Another piece on Covid. Are you bored yet?

I took a call today from a founder friend several months into his startup asking for advice on dealing with a poor performer they recently hired. The request was familiar to me, I've heard variations on the theme several times: "That engineer we hired a couple of months ago? They're doing alright, but not quite at the pace we need. They have a few weeks until their probation is up, would love some advice on how to handle it".

Every time we add a person to our company, we take on risk. All hiring assessments are imperfect. The only guarantee is if you hire enough people you'll eventually have to deal with a poor performer.

While we can't be perfect in our hiring process—and we don't aim to be, as when 

—we must take the right actions once we realise the new member of the team isn't performing as needed. Doing so helps you, the employee, your team, and the company.

You hired somebody to perform a job for your company. If they're not doing that then the company isn't making the progress you need. 

Your team should delight and surprise you

, adding value to the company beyond what you hoped.

The downsides go beyond simply not making the progress required. Poor performers slow others in the team down too. Colleagues have to make up the work not completed, or redo parts of it, distracting them from their own goals. Excessive hand holding and training also takes up time and focus (be careful here as some amounts of each are required, especially in the early stages).

Your team knows when a colleague isn't performing. Keeping a low quality performer in the team sends a message to them that the demonstrated level of performance is acceptable. Intrinsically motivated people need to work with great colleagues, they want to be pushed and continually learn. You're the guardian of the quality bar at your company and your team is looking to you to keep it high.

It's kind to the employee to get this part of the process right. They're unlikely to be enjoying the struggle if it's not going to work out. And keeping them in place with a false hope of progress means they're missing out on opportunities elsewhere where they can flourish. Poor performance is rarely a function of just the person, nearly everybody will find somewhere they can shine. By not addressing the situation you're denying them the chance to find their ideal place.

Humans are natural avoiders of conflict. There are various reasons that apply in different amounts to different people. Conflict takes up energy. We fear upsetting people. Our brains release adrenaline and cortisol even in anticipation of hard discussions, a throwback to when fight or flight was necessary for our physical survival.

Luckily, our rational brains can fight back if we understand what's happening. One of Thread's values is candour, which encourages us to respond to the anticipation of threat by rationalising what the right action is. It's a reminder that to make the best long-term decision we have to overcome the biological wiring that helped humans survive in the face of prehistoric threats.

When confronted with these obstacles to conflict, we shy away from it. We retrofit excuses such as “maybe they'll come good in a few weeks”, or “maybe we didn't set them up for success”. You must inspect these excuses carefully. You probably haven't set them up for success as well as you could have, and you have to give people time to get used to how things work in a new environment. This is particularly true for those with less experience — be very careful that you're not attributing poor performance to the individual when your company isn't giving them any chance.

Equally, be careful that you're not trying to kid yourself. It's always possible to say you could have done better and you can always give people more time. But make sure you're not self-flagellating as an excuse to avoid the hard decision.

people-first mindset is the key to a successful team

, it's always surprising how much better the situation is for everybody involved.

Be as clear as possible that their performance doesn't match your expectations, and inform them as soon as you know. It's common to delay this stage, especially if we're not 100% sure. This is a mistake. Face the problem and work to remedy it.

The initial conversation should be empathetic, kind, direct, and clear. The goal is to uncover anything preventing the employee from reaching the level of performance that's needed.

Work with them: “Looking at the past couple of weeks, the volume of your output hasn't been at the level I'd expect. Is there anything I can do to help you improve?” You may discover you haven't set expectations correctly, or there's something they feel they couldn't speak to you about that's slowing them down.

Set a goal. As you're addressing this early, you don't have to rush this stage. “Let's see how we get on in the next couple of weeks. We can chat every couple of days, but I'm always here if you need anything.”

The biggest mistake you can make is getting to the point you have to let the person go, and it's a surprise to them. Give them every chance to succeed, and do everything you can to help them. Think about the situation from their perspective — it's a new company with new people, they may be junior, working with new tools, and may have nerves or external issues affecting their ability to do good work. You're putting more pressure on them, which is necessary to prevent surprises further down the line, so you have to do what you can to give them an environment in which they can succeed.

Always be kind. Kindness and candour are not mutually exclusive. Don't water down your message, but never be a dick about it.

Netflix uses the 'keeper test'. The manager asks themselves: “If this person was thinking of leaving for another company, would I try hard to keep them from leaving?” If the answer is “no”, then you should let them go. Whether you employ this technique or not, it's important that you get confident in your decision.

Part ways with as much compassion as you can. Be generous with notice periods and leave. An extra week or two's salary may not mean much to your company's runway, but it means a lot to somebody who has to begin a job search again.

Emphasise that it's a company fit issue — there's nearly always a place where people will shine. Help them work out where they may work best, for example if it's a pace issue then a larger company could help give them the structure to be more productive. Asking people to leave has been the least enjoyable part of my career by far. It hasn't become any easier. The sleepless nights preceding it give me some comfort that I've put as much thought and effort into their time at the company as I could have done — we can't do more than that if it's just not working out.

Addressing poor performance in an early stage startup

Offering condolences or giving praise are examples of activities that take us little effort but have a disproportionate impact on somebody's day.

We hesitate—it may feel awkward, or we can't think of the right words, or we may not think our words will mean that much, particularly if the potential recipient isn't somebody close to us.

And yet, these words can make someone's day. Malcolm Gladwell 

 of a conscious effort to be more public with his praise. He started making a point of telling the world about his five favourite writers, those who have heavily influenced his work. After a period of time with this routine, he received a handwritten note from Janet Malcolm, one of those he had been effusive about in his interviews, expressing her delight.

The much missed Christopher Hitchens in one of 

A small amount of your time can have a huge impact on somebody else's happiness. It's always worth making the effort.

A minute of your time can make someone's day

Your goal is to build a team that constantly surprises you. You should be hiring for people who do things you can't, who are better than you. Let go of your ego, you can't be the best person any longer. You must accept that you're managing people who are superior. Your job will now change, you become an enabler, a remover of friction, one who creates an environment for the special people you are now responsible for. Make them happy and free to do their work so they can delight themselves and you.

We are often faced with difficult situations. We can face them head on but we often have a choice to take an easy way out. And sometimes we can sidestep them completely.

nearly always right to embrace the hard stuff

Firstly: difficult things usually aren't as difficult as they seem. The hard part may be starting, especially if it's a large project without a clear goal (remember you can make a project less daunting by 

). Or it may evoke an emotion that we instinctively want to avoid, such as confronting a friend about a disagreeable behaviour, or having a difficult conversation with a work colleague. As we put these things off and they remain on our to-do list—or worse, in our heads—they grow in difficulty each time we decide not to do them.

It makes sense that we may prefer the easy path. Hard things are hard, and they use up energy, time and our focus. We may fail, and hard things often have bigger consequences if we do.

There are also consequences for taking an easy path or ignoring a hard one. Not confronting your flatmate about behaviour that irritates you ever so slightly will lead to a large festering issue and much bigger problems. Habitually late people won't consider all the aspects of getting ready to go somewhere, the journey and their previous behaviours that have resulted in lateness, and as such will continue to overpromise their timely arrival and not be there when expected. Not starting a project before it gets close to a deadline, or worse, not starting one that doesn't have a deadline, means you'll endure much more stress than necessary and won't make the long-term progress in life that you want.

Difficult things are often more rewarding. 

. The feeling of achievement only comes after completing a challenge. “The Things which hurt,” Benjamin Franklin wrote, “instruct.”

Taking on hard things is a skill. You strengthen your grit by practicing, by leaning into your obstacles. This makes future challenges feel less difficult, and gives you the facility to take on even trickier tasks.

It also widens your skillset so you can take on more things. This gives you the ability to combine different skills and widen your worldview as you learn. You should always aim to maximise your slope.

Our default behaviour is to take the easy option and deciding not to do something is a decision in itself. If you want to increase your skillset, make progress on your long-term goals, increase the frequency of achievement, and avoid the consequences of sidestepping life's challenges, then lean into the hard stuff. You always have a choice, as Epictetus says: "every situation has two handles".

But be self-compassionate, and be careful of pushing yourself too far. Hard things are hard, they take energy you don't have infinite resources of. Remember to always be kind to yourself.

Embrace the hard stuff

Your children will copy you. They see what you do. They will become what you demonstrate, they will take on your behaviours. Children are sponges.

Therefore you should be who you want your kids to become. You are their role model. Act virtuously at all times, 

Define your principles, constantly reflect, and ensure you have a goal system.

It doesn't matter how virtuous your words are if you are disingenuous in your actions.

Reading is the greatest shortcut to self-improvement. They should see you reading (and writing). Make books a central part of your house and life.

You may be able to deceive them sometimes, but not all the time. 

When they notice that you haven't told them the truth or have misled them, they won't know when to trust you

. Therefore it's important to never deceive them.

Your children will copy you

Imagine if you had an illness which left you with scales all over your neck and arms whenever you travelled. These scales are itchy, they stop you from sleeping, they distract you so you can't concentrate, and they make you feel really shit.

Imagine your friend's concern as they started appearing each time you got to your destination. Imagine how they'd approach a visit from you, checking to see if there was anything they could do to limit the impact of your disease. If you were going on holiday with a friend, imagine how the conversations about your destination would go, making sure that any environmental factors that impacted the severity of your skin issue would be discussed and together you'd choose somewhere that would make it as easy as possible for you.

Think about how this would affect any trips you take and the steps you and your travelling companions would take to limit it. Your friends wouldn't forget about it as the reminder is there for them as soon as you arrive.

Now imagine that you have this same illness, but it's invisible. And say that it affects you insidiously, such as preventing you from sleeping, not enough for you to stomp around the house and keep others awake, but enough so that you don't really get any rest, so that you have pains in your chest from the tiredness during the day, so that you feel like you haven't really slept at all, so that you can't really take on anything remotely cognitively challenging, and simple things become difficult and painful to do.

Imagine that this takes up such a huge part of your headspace when you're travelling that you can't concentrate on having fun, that the exciting things you do on holiday become overwhelming efforts and all you want to do is hide in your room. Imagine that you tell your friends that you're just tired and need to chill out, and they think that you've just had a rough night's sleep, make you a coffee and start talking about the amazing things you're all going to do that day.

Imagine all the differences between your bright red scaly disease that invites sympathy and comment, and the silent, quiet, invisible one that you mainly suffer alone.