Jeroen Sangers logo Jeroen Sangers

An AI can maintain your knowledge system if you give it a map of the system instead of rules

Almost every personal knowledge system dies the same way: the ideas keep coming, but the maintenance doesn’t. Keeping it up to date is your job, and one busy week is enough for the backlog to grow so large that you stop touching it altogether. When you have time, you tag your notes, link them and turn loose ideas into tasks; when you don’t, everything piles up in an inbox that turns into a graveyard. Willpower is a poor engine for that kind of work.

What changes this isn’t a smarter AI. It’s a single document that describes how your system is built. It names the kinds of notes you keep (sources, ideas, projects, people); the handful of central notes that act as entry points, with everything else hanging off them, for example one per project or area; how those notes relate to each other; what “in its place” means to you; and which distinctions you’ve learned to care about. That document is the map. Without a map, every maintenance decision falls to you; with one, the AI can take that work off your hands.

The temptation is to hand the AI a list of rules. That gets it backwards: a rulebook never covers the case you didn’t foresee, and it makes whoever follows it clumsy. The map describes the shape of the system, and you hand it over with a clear role and permission to use judgement. Think of a librarian. She doesn’t write the books or decide which collection you want, but once she knows your catalogue, she shelves each new book better than a sorting machine running on two hundred instructions.

This shows most clearly with repetition. Over the months, you write down the same idea five times in slightly different words. An AI that uses judgement recognises it and expands the note you already have; an AI that follows rules creates five new ones. That’s the difference between an archive that grows and one that clogs up.

It helps to distinguish between two kinds of ordering. The first is thinking: deciding what an idea means, what you connect it to and which distinctions are worth making. That work is yours and should stay yours, because if you delegate it, you stop thinking. The second is maintenance: filing each note where the map says it belongs, adding the links the map already anticipates and checking whether the idea is already in there. That part you can hand over. Your share is what only you can do: notice something, think it through and get it out of your head, even if that means talking out loud on a walk. And drawing the map, which is thinking too.

29 years ago today I added a news page to my website. Four years ago I wrote that I wasn’t too proud of this blog anymore. This year feels different: I’ve already published more than in either of the last two years, and almost four times as many longer pieces. Here’s to year 30. 🍻

Seth Godin on fake async:

Over time, async creeps toward sync. It’s ironic that Slack messages, texts and email which succeeded because they were async, now create an expectation of real-time response. These are async tools used with sync expectations, so you get the interruptions of sync without its energy.

Personal discipline can’t solve this one. You can block two hours for focused work, but if your team expects an answer within minutes, that block won’t survive. The expectation belongs to the team, so the team has to change it: agree which channel is for what, and what really counts as urgent. Then async can be async again.

A team's engagement comes from its direct manager, not from the company

According to Gallup, managers account for about 70% of the variance in their teams’ engagement. How committed people are in an organization depends mostly on their direct boss. In practice, middle managers are the ones really responsible for engagement and for whether people stay, whatever their job title says.

Nobody experiences a company’s strategy in the abstract. They experience it through the person who hands them their work, makes clear what is expected, notices what they do well and helps them grow. It works like teachers: a good teacher brings a subject to life, a bad one can kill your interest in something you used to enjoy. A middle manager does more than carry out the strategy. They decide how it feels day to day: whether the work is clear or confusing, whether it gives energy or drains it. They also set the emotional climate of the team, because moods are contagious. Celebrating small wins keeps motivation up and builds a culture of recognition.

What the role asks for is mostly relational: trust built on keeping your word and on a real interest in each person, influence instead of orders, and the ability to turn strategy into concrete questions for the team, with enough safety that everyone dares to speak up.

This is the part that tends to get missed. Many organizations treat their middle managers as a purely operational function. They load them with reports and follow-ups and train them in processes and metrics. That leaves the strongest lever they have unused, and the problem cascades down: only a minority of managers feel engaged themselves, and a disengaged manager passes that on to the people below. So taking care of middle managers starts at the top. Training them in relationships takes more than a one-off course: it needs ongoing support, and explicit permission from leadership to spend time on people as well as on numbers.

In the long run, the teams that learn fastest win, not the ones with the most talent or the best plan

In times of rapid change, the teams that perform best over the long run are neither the most talented nor the ones with the best plan. They are the ones that learn fastest. Talent is what a team brings today, and a plan answers yesterday’s world; the ability to learn is the only thing that compounds. Ordinary teams stall the moment they find something that works: they stop asking, stop trying, and slowly fall behind.

That ability depends on what the person leading does. Teams that keep improving run nearly 50% more experiments than the average team, because their leader makes experimentation easy, safe, and worthwhile, and recognizes people who take thoughtful risks, even when those experiments fail. The leader admits what they don’t know and asks more questions, which builds the trust anyone needs to say they don’t understand something. In meetings they go beyond reviewing progress and ask “where are you stuck?”, so obstacles become normal and get solved together while they are still small. They keep their hands in the work without controlling every step, so they know first-hand what is going on. Counterintuitively, that gives them energy, because a leader who manages from a distance decides on incomplete information and spends the day fighting fires they never saw coming. They support each person’s growth even when it doesn’t benefit the team, including when someone decides to leave. And they explain why the work matters, which is what keeps a team from settling for “good enough”.

Feedback deserves special care. In more than a third of the cases studied, it makes performance worse. Delivered poorly, it demoralizes; delivered well, it unlocks growth. The difference lies in treating mistakes as useful data rather than as a verdict, because under threat the mind closes to protect itself and stops learning.

The Oklahoma City Thunder show what this looks like. The NBA franchise rebuilt from the bottom twice, with some of the youngest rosters in the league, and both times climbed to the top, the second time all the way to a championship. Instead of chasing star signings, it built a culture that tolerates the messiness of growth.

That is the hardest part: learning fast includes going backwards. Trying something new usually makes results worse for a while, and a team that punishes that dip stops experimenting exactly when it needs to most.

Learning runs through acquiring, retaining and retrieving, and each stage fails on its own

Learning, understood as a relatively permanent change that comes from experience, runs through three stages: acquiring, retaining and retrieving. Each one can fail on its own, and that is why each one asks for something different.

Acquisition is the first contact: you take in the new information, encode it and start practising the basics. What counts here is attention. Retention is the move into long-term memory, what keeps something there even when you rarely use it. Retrieval is using what you learned when you need it: recalling a fact in a meeting, or performing a skill without having to think.

The trap is mixing up the stages. You walk out of a course feeling you understood everything, and you did: acquisition went well. A week later you try to explain it to a colleague and it won’t come out. Understanding held up; retrieval is what failed. Rereading your notes won’t train it, because recognising something and pulling it out of memory are different operations. What does train it is trying to recall without looking, with pauses between one attempt and the next.

The three stages are a useful simplification rather than three sealed boxes: what you do when you retrieve something also strengthens what you retain. Their practical value lies in diagnosis. When something won’t stick, first ask at which stage it breaks, and only then change the way you study.

Working out loud is making your work observable while you do it and narrating it as you go

Working out loud is more than telling people what you’re doing. It has two halves, and each one on its own falls short.

The first half is observable work: your documents, drafts and decisions live where others can see them, follow them and add to them while you work, instead of once they’re “finished”. The second half is narrating: leaving a short trail of what you’re doing and why, on an internal blog, a microblog or a channel.

Narrate alone, and it feels like one more task on top of the ones you already have, which is why so many people push back. Leave your work in view alone, and others can see it but can’t tell where you are with it. Together they work: the work in progress is there, and your story gives it context.

What you gain is time, though it arrives from the other side. When anyone who needs to know how something is going can look whenever they like, much of the follow-up email, the status reports and the catch-up meetings fade away. And the history stays where it can be found, instead of being buried in inboxes or loose files.

A picture that helps: it’s like watching the film while it’s still being shot. Whoever wants to know where the rest of the team is simply looks at now.

A daily review with AI makes visible the patterns a single day hides

A daily review with AI as a thinking partner reveals patterns you can’t see in a single day. One observation on its own is worth little. Repeated over weeks, it becomes something you can make decisions with.

It works because it separates living the day from making sense of it. During the day you get to just live it: you know there’s time set aside at the end to make sense of it, and knowing that already lightens the load. In that time you talk through what happened, what you learned and what comes next, and in the telling you find out what you think, because often you only know once you try to explain it. The AI asks questions when you stay vague, and since it remembers what you told it on previous days, it can point out what you miss: “this is the third time this week you’ve said your energy drops after lunch.” Tuesday’s observation becomes, by Friday, a criterion for organising your calendar, and a month later a different way of planning your mornings.

The practice asks little: five to ten minutes at the end of the workday, a light structure of questions, and a summary you store where you can search it later. Once a week, the same exercise with more distance, to see trends and adjust priorities.

What tends to get overlooked is that the value lies in the deliberate pause, more than in the template or the tool. And one practical detail: talking to the AI in voice-conversation mode feels pleasant, but dictating your answers gives better summaries, because part of what you say in a voice conversation never makes it into the record.