Keep evolving without losing what makes you recognisably you.

I’m sure you recognise this… I was working on an article and asked ChatGPT to improve it. The first version was clearer, so I asked it to have another go, and then another one.

After the third version, there was nothing wrong with the article, but it just didn’t sound like me anymore. One thought had been changed so much that it no longer felt authentic, so I changed it back. Then, I also put back a long sentence and a few words that sounded like a bad translation from Dutch into English (apparently, even my English needs to stay a little Dutch) and had to re-tweak a lot of other items too. Long story short… I asked AI to improve the article and ended up undoing those improvements.
I still used AI to help write the version you are reading, so I’m hardly arguing against it. I like what it can do. But what I want is to recognise my own thinking and style in the finished article.

People tell me they have the same reactions at work. They receive an email from a colleague, supplier or adviser and immediately sense that it was written by AI. The message may be clear, polite and perfectly fine. It just gives little sense that the sender thought about what they wanted to say or who would be reading it.

An email is a small example. The larger issue begins when technology shapes how a company works. Companies are encouraged to standardise, automate and become autonomous. Much of that makes sense. Some complexity really should disappear. Yet, an exception that looks inefficient may carry years of experience, it can be part of how a company thinks, solves problems and serves its customers. Remove too much of it and the company may run more efficiently while losing part of the reason customers chose it. It lost its authentic self.

Boardrooms are spending a lot of time on where AI can create value, whether the data is ready, how the risks will be managed and how costs will be kept under control. Fair enough. Used well, AI can take away some of the routine and give people more room to think, decide and create. In my view, boards should be just as clear about what the company does not want to lose: the judgement by its people, its culture and values, and the reason it exists (in other words, its heart).

When the algorithm points a different direction than experience, or simply gut feeling, I would not ignore that too quickly. There may be a reason for it. Both have value. The same applies when a company’s technology roadmap starts to look remarkably like its vendor’s. It may be time to check who is still setting the direction.

For me, staying weird is not about being different for the sake of it. It is about keeping the freedom to think for yourself and not automatically following your competitors, your software vendor or anyone or anything else. It is what keeps a company real and recognisably itself.

“Stay weird” will probably not appear in the board papers. Call it “strategic differentiation” if that looks more comfortable in the minutes. But think for a moment what the difference can be between thrive and survive. To thrive you should set, live and broadcast your authentic self.

Recognisable? My next article will dive into how to protect your weirdness, which parts to protect and why it is hard, especially with standard solutions offered by vendors. If you can’t wait till my next article, feel free to reach out to me now already.