Month: July 2026

There is a difference between leading an organization and becoming the organization.

I recently saw a Sky Sports discussion about FIFA and Gianni Infantino that made this distinction very obvious. The criticism was not simply about whether Infantino is a good or bad president. It was about governance.

FIFA is a huge international organization made up of associations, committees, employees and stakeholders. Yet, from the outside, it can increasingly feel like FIFA and Infantino are becoming the same thing.

This is not only a FIFA problem.

Strong leaders are valuable because they give organizations direction. But the stronger the leader becomes, the easier it is for the organization to start depending on their personality, decisions and relationships.

Eventually, people stop asking what the organization thinks and start asking what the leader thinks.

That creates a strange contradiction. A leader can become so powerful that their strength actually makes the organization weaker.

Good governance exists partly to prevent this. Boards, executives, rules and checks on authority can look unnecessarily bureaucratic when everything is going well, but their purpose is to make sure an institution remains bigger than the person currently running it.

This matters in companies too, especially founder-led ones.

If every important relationship belongs to the CEO, every major decision requires the CEO and the company’s identity is inseparable from the CEO, then the organization hasn’t really been built to exist independently.

Great leadership should leave behind a stronger institution, not a more dependent one.

A leader should shape an organization without becoming it.

Every year brings a new business trend that promises to transform entire industries. Artificial intelligence, blockchain, the metaverse, NFTs, Web3, remote work, and countless management frameworks have all been presented as essential for future success. Faced with constant headlines and competitive pressure, many organizations feel obligated to adopt every emerging trend. However, constantly following the latest movement can weaken a company’s long-term strategy.

Businesses often confuse innovation with imitation. Instead of asking whether a new technology solves a genuine problem, they adopt it because competitors are doing the same. This approach consumes financial resources, management attention, and employee time without necessarily creating meaningful value. Innovation should begin with customer needs rather than industry hype.

History provides numerous examples of trends that generated enormous excitement before fading into relative obscurity. While some technologies eventually become transformative, many never achieve the impact originally predicted. Organizations that invest heavily without a clear strategic purpose risk diverting resources away from projects that genuinely support their competitive advantage. Not every trend deserves immediate adoption.

Successful companies are not those that react fastest to every headline but those that make disciplined decisions about where to invest their attention. A clear strategy requires the confidence to ignore opportunities that do not align with long-term objectives. Sometimes, the smartest business decision is not to follow the newest trend, but to continue executing the right one.

Artificial intelligence has made knowledge more accessible than ever before. Within seconds, users can receive explanations, summaries, programming assistance, legal information, or business advice that once required years of study to obtain. This accessibility has enormous benefits, but it also raises an important question: if everyone has instant access to information, what role does expertise still play?

One growing misconception is that information and expertise are interchangeable. AI systems can generate convincing answers to an extraordinary range of questions, yet they do not replace the judgment developed through years of experience. An experienced engineer understands not only how something should work but also why previous solutions failed. A doctor recognizes subtle patterns that cannot always be captured by generalized knowledge. Expertise involves context, intuition, and decision-making, not simply recalling facts.

At the same time, professionals can no longer rely solely on possessing information that others do not. AI has reduced the value of memorization while increasing the importance of interpretation and critical thinking. The most successful professionals will likely be those who combine their domain knowledge with AI rather than competing against it. Technology becomes a powerful assistant, but the responsibility for evaluating its output remains human.

Rather than signaling the end of expertise, AI is redefining it. The future belongs to professionals who know how to ask better questions, verify information, and apply knowledge thoughtfully. In an age where answers are increasingly abundant, sound judgment may become the rarest and most valuable skill of all.

David Fincher’s The Social Network is widely regarded as one of the greatest films about technology and entrepreneurship. Its screenplay is sharp, its performances are memorable, and it successfully captures the ambition and competitiveness of Silicon Valley. However, while the film tells a compelling story, it also reinforces several myths about what building a successful company actually looks like.

Perhaps the biggest misconception is the image of the lone genius. The film places Mark Zuckerberg at the center of every important breakthrough, suggesting that extraordinary businesses are primarily the result of one exceptionally talented individual. In reality, successful startups are almost always built by teams whose combined skills in engineering, design, marketing, operations, and finance make growth possible. Entrepreneurship is rarely a solo achievement.

The movie also portrays startup success as an almost inevitable consequence of intelligence and determination. It gives comparatively little attention to timing, market conditions, access to funding, or simple luck. Countless talented entrepreneurs build excellent products that never become global companies because external factors play a decisive role. Hard work is necessary, but it is rarely sufficient on its own.

Despite these simplifications, The Social Network remains an outstanding film because it explores ambition, power, and personal sacrifice rather than functioning as a business documentary. Viewers should appreciate it as a dramatic interpretation of entrepreneurship, not as a blueprint for creating the next billion-dollar company.