I’ve been working to create accountability groups for entrepreneurs in Atlanta. Two have gotten off the ground and are serving as great pilots to learn from. I’m looking to launch a third, but I’m starting to think that coordinating three-plus groups might require me to change how I handle the things I need to do between meetings. Email and text reminders need to go out to founders, and other tasks include agenda prep, scheduling one-on-one meetings with group members, and researching topics that came up and sharing that information with the group.

I don’t love this kind of work, but I’ve noticed that the more organized I am (or appear to be) and the more smoothly run the meetings are, the more prepared and engaged the members are before and during each meeting. I need to find a scalable way to handle all this stuff. If I don’t, the quality of the meetings could be affected.

I don’t want to hire anyone because I don’t want to manage anyone. Instead, I’m thinking about using AI agents to do these tasks or make it easier for me to do them. I’m going to do some digging. I think this could be a great excuse to test some of the newer tools: Grok Bot, Muse, Instinct, etc. I’ve been wanting to play with these, and this use case might be the perfect way to learn how to use them.

A few months ago, I shared that I was going to start more accountability groups for entrepreneurs. I’ve now inaugurated the second one with a friend who’s also an entrepreneur. (He’s running one group, and I’m running the other.) This week we had the first meeting.

One of the things I did differently this go-around was make the first meeting more geared toward onboarding. I focused on explaining what the group is, how it will operate, and why it will be effective. I also used this meeting as an opportunity for the entrepreneurs to give elevator pitches about themselves and their companies.

This approach went over better than I’d expected, and the entrepreneurs got a lot out of it. There’s still more work to do, but this project seems to be off to a good start.

As I’ve discussed in previous posts, I’ve been working with several entrepreneurs and moderating a monthly accountability group for them. We had our third meeting this week, and it went well (lessons learned coming in another post). I’m considering working with another entrepreneur on this project. I had a good conversation with him this week. He recognizes the value in these groups and has been in one himself. The idea is that together we could moderate additional accountability groups. I’m not sure what will come of our conversation, but it’s encouraging that other entrepreneurs are open to moderating these groups alongside me.

As I shared last month (see here), I’ve been working with Atlanta entrepreneurs and moderating an accountability group. The group meets once a month for a few hours. I’m aiming for the group to be highly engaged and open to sharing so they’ll learn from peers' experiences and can solve their own problems faster. My goal is to make each meeting a better experience for the entrepreneurs than the last.

We had our second meeting this week. The members rated the meeting highly (this is at the end of each agenda), but the meeting didn’t meet my expectations. “High engagement” means everyone is showing up, being prepared to share, and learning from their peers. During our first meeting, we had 100% attendance. I also had everyone go through their calendar month by month for the next six months. We found dates that worked for everyone and committed to those dates as a group. I sent meeting invites out for the next six months. Stuff happens, but as much as possible, I wanted to mitigate scheduling issues that would prevent a busy, type-A entrepreneur from attending.

This month, two members couldn’t make it. Another member was late. I’ve realized that I didn’t fully set expectations with the group. The expectation related to being late had been set (no admittance after the meeting starts), but I hadn’t crystallized what happens if someone misses a meeting (whether that’s planned or because of tardiness).

My thinking is that A players want to be around other A players. They get annoyed when they’re forced to work alongside less-than-A players and often remove themselves from such situations. I think everyone in this group is an A player, but this week, not everyone gave A-level effort. Three members missed. To maintain the high-engagement, high-effort culture required to make this group a success, I need everyone to give A-level effort every meeting. That means showing up on time and prepared.

Last month, everyone gave A-level effort. The challenge this month is that some members gave A-level effort and others didn’t. I’m pretty sure (though this is an assumption; no one said anything to me) that attendees who did give A-level effort noticed the difference. I need to address this and have the members who missed demonstrate to their peers that they can and will put forth A-level effort going forward.

I’m not 100% sure how I’ll do this, but I’m thinking about having each member who missed explain, in two minutes, why they want to continue being part of the group and what they’ll do to avoid missing future meetings. The members can then vote on whether that person can continue as a member (i.e., do we think this person will give A-level effort going forward?).

Regardless, the second meeting is in the books, and the members got value from it. I’m looking forward to tweaking this format to make the rest of the meetings better than the first two.

I’m following up on yesterday’s post (see here). A credible person I respect read that post and proposed an alternative solution to the problem I described. Instead of deciding between one 60-minute presentation (in a 2-hour meeting) or two 60-minute presentations (in a 3-hour meeting), they suggested making the presentation for urgent problems 30 minutes and the scheduled presentation 60 minutes, extending the total meeting time to 2.5 hours, which may not feel like as drastic a change. I like this and will share it with the entrepreneurs to see what they think.

The other takeaway is that as moderator, I have lots of follow-up to do and action items to take care of before the next meeting. Founders need assistance, preparation for the next meeting, etc. Meetings are held monthly, so in theory I could wait until closer to the next meeting to start working on action items. However, I find it more helpful to attack them immediately after a meeting while everyone’s memory is fresh and the momentum with the entrepreneurs is strong. For example, immediately after the meeting adjourned, I scheduled meetings with the entrepreneurs who said they wanted help, and next week I’ll help them work through roadblocks. I also immediately reflected on people’s feedback and created the agenda for the next meeting, incorporating the feedback and learnings while they were fresh in my mind. I feel better prepared for the next meeting and have a plan to keep founders engaged by helping them before the next meeting.

I’m very pleased with the first meeting, but I’m not satisfied. I want to improve it so the value founders get from participating trumps anything else they’re a part of and makes them excitedly look forward to every meeting.

As I shared last week (see here), for the past few weeks I’ve been working with Atlanta entrepreneurs to set up an accountability group. The group meets once a month for a few hours. My expectation for the group is high engagement and open sharing so they’ll learn from one another and solve their problems faster. I want them to get value similar to what entrepreneurs get from EO and YPO forums.

We had our first meeting this week, which I moderated. It was a success, but I learned several valuable lessons. Meeting length is the first. We aimed for two hours, which included one sixty-minute presentation. The presentation was selected based on which entrepreneur had the most urgent problem to solve. This worked, and the presentation was great. But the feedback from the group was that allowing only the entrepreneur with the most urgent problem to present likely isn’t sustainable. Entrepreneurs said they didn’t like the idea of having to pick from urgent house fires at every meeting. Some want to know they’ll have a guaranteed opportunity to present, even if they don’t have a burning problem. And last, some entrepreneurs want more time to think about and prepare a presentation and to know with certainty that their presentation will happen.

The challenge is that the meeting agendas are currently built around a two-hour meeting length: one hour of discussing the most important updates from each entrepreneur, with the idea of finding one worth presenting to the group, and a one-hour presentation.

To address the group’s concerns, we will likely need to add a second presentation slot. One would be the most burning problem selected on the spot from the updates. The other would be a scheduled presentation. We’ll either have to add another hour to the meeting, making it three hours long, or cut the presentation time in half. Each option has pros and cons.

I’m not sure what change, if any, we’ll make. The group will make the final decision via a democratic process. But it stood out to me that several entrepreneurs pointed out the challenges of having a single presentation slot for each meeting.

Regardless, the first meeting went well, and I’m looking forward to continually improving the meeting format to maximize the value to the entrepreneurs.

This week, I had a conversation with a good friend about the power of community. He’s an entrepreneur in a traditional industry and is looking for ways to increase awareness of his brand and the products he sells. He’s got good marketing ideas that follow what others in his industry have done successfully.

I introduced the idea of building a community around his product: First, create an audience of people who love the product for a deeply personal reason (i.e., it helps them solve a problem they care deeply about). Then, hopefully, convert some percentage of that audience into a community of people who will engage with each other (with some guidelines and light moderation).

I like this idea because it leans into a key market concept: word of mouth is the best form of marketing. People in a community love talking to one another and will invite other like-minded people into the community. They share what they’re doing in the community and how the community has helped them. This all helps knowledge of the brand and product spread via word of mouth.

I also like the idea of community because it creates a moat, or competitive advantage. When you have a community of people who’ve bought into a brand or product, they don’t want to leave the tribe they’re a part of, so it’s less likely they’ll leave or switch brands or products. Community makes customers stickier and creates a moat that’s hard for competitors to replicate.

Lastly, I really like community because it’s a great way to keep a finger on the pulse of what your target customer thinks of your existing products, learn about ideas for new products, and spot early trends you can capitalize on. It’s a great feedback mechanism and a way to stay connected to customers in an organic way, which leads to product improvements and new products that keep your customers loyal.

All in all, I’m a fan of companies leaning into creating communities, especially when they’re in slow-moving or antiquated industries.

Today I celebrated the life of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I had the opportunity to commemorate his legacy by attending a great event at Atlanta History Center today. I learned a lot. I’m thankful for Dr. King’s efforts as they were foundational in moving our country closer to equality for all.

Hope everyone had a great MLK Day!

Merry Christmas!

I hope everyone had a happy holiday!

Last year, Money magazine ranked Atlanta as the best place to live in the U.S. in 2022. At the time, I shared my thoughts on Atlanta transitioning to a tier-one major metropolitan city. I believed the ranking showed that word was getting out. I wrote:

I’ve been a believer for many years that Atlanta is where the puck is headed. Most people don’t realize how great the city is. I’ve long believed that when word got out about the city’s greatness, it would go from being a metro city to what I call a tier-one major metro. That transition would put the city in a different stratosphere and able to compete as a destination with other tier-one major metros. I think of tier-one major metros as cities that are known outside the US as the undisputed capitals of their regions. Think New York City for the Northeast, Chicago for the Midwest, Los Angeles for the West. The Southeast has a few great cities, but not an undisputed capital, especially when you ask people outside the country.

Money came out with its “50 Best Places to Live in U.S. for 2023” list, and Atlanta has once again topped the list. My favorite lines from this year’s writeup:

Atlanta is big on culture, in every sense of the word. In years past, it helped catalyze the Civil Rights Movement, and was a nucleus of some of the most popular hip hop, R&B and country music we still listen to today. These days, our No. 1 place to live is nothing short of a cultural behemoth.

Atlanta is a place that people don’t want to just pass through temporarily. They want to plant roots and call it home because it offers the opportunity to pursue professional excellence, an amazing quality of life, and a diverse culture. This rare combination, along with numerous other positives, makes Atlanta unique and desirable. It also helps make a strong case for Atlanta to be the “capital” of the Southeast.

Congrats to the city for topping this list two years in a row. I’m happy others are recognizing what we’ve always known.

For Money’s full list of 2023’s best places to live, see here. For Money’s 2023 writeup on Atlanta, see here.