Cadence or die!

Run your company like Steve did

TL;DR

If it’s not in the calendar, it doesn’t exist.

If it’s in the calendar but badly set up, it’s worse.

Cadence isn’t about structure. It’s about momentum and clarity.

With the right constraints, it becomes your most powerful tool on all levels from C-Level to teams.

This post shows how I build cadences that actually work.

Intro

There’s a famous Steve Jobs video where he explains how Apple was run: one weekly meeting, all the key people, clear priorities. No committees. Sounds simple. And brilliant.

Most companies don’t work like that. They chase fires. They improvise. They avoid hard calls.

C.o.n.s.t.a.n.t. exchange. Institutionalized.

When I suggest that video to people, most of the time the reaction is: “cool, why don’t we run our company like this?”. When I suggest just giving it a try, though, the reaction most of the time is: “oh, that wouldn’t work here,” and quickly people find all kinds of excuses why that exact way of running your company simply does not work here—and they avoid it.

The reason for avoidance is clear: Give it a try. Setting up such a fixed management cadence takes a crazy amount of discipline for it to work. So, a cadence is necessary but not sufficient.

I promised NOT to talk about hacks. But, honestly, cadences are the “method” closest to a hack that I know. But there are enabling constraints required. I see cadences as that important that my whole strategy model of Markers – Options – Work (more on that in later postings) is based on the mechanics of cadences inside and between the layers of the model.

But let’s start at the beginning.

What Cadences Fix

Cadences fix a universal problem: decline or lack of clarity, priority, and an absence of decisions and commitment to those decisions.

What I See in the Field

Let me show you how this is a real, measurable problem through real-life observations:

Exhibit A:

Studies say that while 97% of managers think they are aligned, only 28% of those could exactly list 3 of the 5 top priorities of their company. What do you think that means when extrapolated to the tens, hundreds, thousands of employees deep down in their departments? In fact, alignment takes time and repetition.

Exhibit B:

Only 14% of employees understand the direction and strategy of their company. And it’s not because they are dumb. The reason is that management thinks that dumping the direction—which they worked on at a fancy offsite after weeks of preparation—onto the employees at the Christmas All Hands is enough. In fact, communicating such an important asset takes time and repetition. The message is highly encoded and takes repeated decoding and contextualizing for real understanding so that people can finally operationalize it. And it does not stop with middle management.

Exhibit C:

80–90% of managers find innovation is a top priority, but only 8% find the results satisfying. But a hard topic like innovation needs time and repetition.

All of these are known issues. And yet: they’re rarely in the calendar. That’s the pattern.

Let’s get practical: What does this look like when I see it in real companies?

I always tell my clients not to listen to words but to look at actions. And actions can be seen in calendars. If it’s not in the calendar, it’s not happening. And if a complex topic is not repeatedly and regularly in the calendar, it does not happen.

(Beware of the flip side: just because you put it in the calendar doesn’t mean it is happening! In fact, a toxic form of cadence is simply defining regular meetings for nonsensical topics in nonsensical circles with nonsensical agendas (or none) and nonsensical follow-up (or none).)

How I Set Up Cadences

So what do I actually do when I notice that cadence is missing? Here’s a typical pattern I follow.

• Spot the absence of commitment

• Name the real topic

• Suggest a regular format

• Start small (15–30 minutes weekly)

• Use existing rhythms if available

As an external, I normally get to witness a ton of meetings. As an external it is much easier to spot unclarity. Especially around important topics. You can spot it when commitments are not made, the can is being kicked down the road again and again, you see a defining topic, but it is not actually worked on but worked around. It’s not because people are bad, it’s because the “system” is working its ways with those people. It seems to not be smart to expose yourself now and get to the heart of things.

That’s the moment I try to clear my head, get a bit of distance and try to grab the topic and suggest making it the core of a “cadence.” That might require a bit of asking questions, discussion, or trying to write around the topic to make sure I grabbed the right topic.

I start by asking for little time. 15 minutes, 30 minutes, an hour—but on a frequent, hopefully weekly basis.

Example topics are: coordination between teams (knowledge, tasks, goals, …), a tough architecture question, future of AI in our company 😉, a change in vision or direction, starting a product/project, stopping it, working on strategy, vision … you name it. Any kind of topic that might be hard and controversial—in which, typically, people avoid the controversy or hard discussion. These topics will not fix themselves.

I might also try to find an already existing regular meeting and make space in that for the “new topic.”

Enabling Constraints

Right, this was the easy part. But we were all about keeping intent up and kicking, right? So, simply setting up a regular meeting seems a rather tired move and simply adds to the load of already existing meetings. Why would this work?

It’s all about good old meeting discipline—and this one needs to excel at it. Here are some ingredients required:

Key Role:

• Pick a facilitator and give them full mandate from the highest ranks in the meeting. This person needs to be able to rule the meeting, ask the toughest questions. Without a 100% valid, serious mandate and the pre-negotiated boundaries and clarity on what that means, that person will die. Brutally. There is a reason we need these meetings, and the reason is that there is a lot of friction that was avoided. This person needs to fully trigger that friction so that at the end of the friction there will be clarity. We did not have the power to go through this, so we need that person to do this job for us and we need to be in full support. I have people coming to me that are asked to facilitate workshops and then are not respected—and the failure of a workshop is blamed on them, while participants delve in meta discussions and simply disrespect the topic, the form of the workshop, and their colleagues. Have that in mind! If no clarity on the level of that mandate exists: don’t facilitate.

Structural Conditions:

• Everyone in one room. Make sure you have everyone in the room you need to crush through that friction and the challenge of the topic at hand. Regardless of rank. Make sure every position is heard. Make sure that the diversity of views is used to the max and with utmost respect.

• Clear, repetitive core of an agenda. Make sure that for every single meeting there is a clear agenda. A big part should be fixed for every meeting—a routine we go through. Make sure there is always a written update on the agenda for the next meeting. Make sure there is always current documentation on status or new insights on the topics. If new subtopics come up, give everyone a chance to be informed before the meeting. If that didn’t happen, stop dead in the beginning and have everyone prepare inside of the meeting.

• Go through the agenda. Set time boxes. If a topic becomes too complex, don’t kill it. But with clarity, decide if it makes sense to go into depth (seems to be needed) right now, or next time, or in a separate meeting between a subgroup—and whether new experts need to be pulled in.

• End the meeting with fixed commitments. Document them and follow them up as part of the fixed parts of the agenda.

Why It Works

These constraints might sound like overkill. But why does it really work?

Everything I mentioned is simply meeting discipline - and discipline in general. Some topics are so hard and need so much talk across departments and leadership, teams, that it is simply hard to crush a clear communication against what the “system” of established goals, roles, individual progress, and goals sets up. Everyone is aware that something’s off. But it would take a ton of courage to break the pattern and someone would expose themselves and be vulnerable in a massive way. In an ideal world someone would be the hero, but you cannot and should not expect that to happen.

So, resorting to basics such as meeting discipline—simply doing it without calling it that—is a huge part of the solution.

On top of that, the high-cadence repetition adds positive effects:

• Hard topics get solved through repetition, not through a one-off approach. Getting to a good solution is not possible for hard problems—no matter if the problem is just a hard topic or socially hard.

• Once people are “forced” into the format and start accepting it, they open up. While in the first meeting there might still be quiet, a realization will set in that this is the meeting that matters. You achieve that by relentless monitoring of progress and status. Nothing is forgotten, decisions are followed up. People over time experience this clarity as a relief. Shit gets done—even if shit might be abstract. And people will be smart and learn how to use the clarity of that format. Meetings will be very active very soon. You will observe that while in the beginning no one might bring up new aspects or subtopics, very soon a whole web of topics and aspects will be brought up. And, if you’re lucky, people will ask for more time for that meeting. (Hint: don’t ever push by asking for more time yourself 🤔).

• People will realize that working on a problem in a group is part of their work—not a thing that people experience often. Here it is the whole purpose. And everyone realizes, they wouldn’t be able to solve the problem themselves, alone—no matter how smart they are.

• The high cadence acts like a hammer banging on our heads week by week by week by … with the most important topic.

• Finally, this—because there is no escape—enforces social capital and the maturity of the discussion to rise. You will be surprised how much better the discussion works in meeting 4 or 6 compared to meeting one. People find a way to go deep, take time, find the right level, and a code to address the problem.

But let’s not kid ourselves: there’s a reason why this doesn’t happen more often.

What Is Hard

This all sounds easy and obvious—until you do it. Here are a couple of usual failure points.

Getting buy-in to get started is incredibly hard for most topics. Reasons are stated and obvious: there is a reason this topic we chose was not treated in the right manner. And grabbing it now in the right way means going through all that organizational, institutionalized resistance. That also means very concretely that some participants might want to boycott the very first meetings until they realize there is no escape.

Which now makes apparent why getting the mandate for facilitation—and a hard mandate on top of it—is so hard and important at the same time. The mandate needs to be stronger than the initial resistance.

And of course, all the basics of starting the rhythm, keeping up the rhythm, and having everyone follow the rules initially can be really hard. My observation is that the “nicer” the company culture is, the more it depends on “social alignment” than on simply “merits” (no judgment here!), the less used people are to discussing to the point. Fear of “hard feelings” prevails over clarity.

Enough on the pitfalls—let’s get back to practice.

Examples: From Strategy to Team Level

Cadences work on all levels. From C-Level to the trenches.

The most “abstract” meeting I use this for are weekly strategy meetings. I centered my whole Markers – Options – Work (MOW) strategy framework around cadence-based alignment and work. In fact, strategy doesn’t work without it.

The tougher the topic, the more C-Level the people involved, the less time I ask for initially and the better organized I try to be. In the extreme, I might ask for an hour/week and end up with only 15 minutes per week. And I will be fine. All I want in the beginning is a start. Progress over perfection. I just want a foot in the door and get the process started and try to get people into it. With a bit of luck, they will come and ask for more time. The best sign is when a meeting needs to be cancelled for a holiday and people ask “what now?”. I then calmly let the meeting be cancelled and not replaced and play normal, simply to keep up the urge. I look for any angle the group might find to ask for more rather than me triggering it.

But cadence is not just for C-level or strategy. It’s just as needed in the everyday reality of teams:

Last week, a participant in an online user group asked for help with really bad department meetings. Undisciplined, emotional regarding hard topics, unengaged in others. Same thing: it’s a sign of all the tensions and the inability to communicate, which needs a cadence to break the pattern and install all the enabling constraints to get it done.

Cadence As Energy

Cadence doesn’t fix everything. But it gives tough topics a chance.

It makes them visible, regular, and a little bit unavoidable.

You’ll know it’s working when people stop resisting the rhythm — and start using it. When they don’t want to miss a session. When tension shows up and gets processed. When decisions don’t evaporate.

And most of all, when moments like pulling a ticket into “Doing” get treated like what they are:

A promise. A bet. A beginning.

This isn’t about meeting hygiene. It’s about keeping your work alive.

If you’ve seen the same dynamics — or if you’re stuck in broken cadences — let me know. If there’s enough interest, I’ll host a Zoom session to go deeper. Just comment or DM. We’ll set something up! Take my word! Engage!