Most operators have advisors. Very few of them get consistent, actionable value from those relationships.
This isn’t because the advisors are bad. It’s a structural problem with how advisory relationships work.
An advisor who meets with you quarterly can only know what you tell them. They’re working with a compressed, curated version of your situation — the highlights you can communicate in a one-hour meeting, filtered through whatever framing you bring to the conversation that day. They don’t have access to the full texture of how you operate, the context behind your decisions, the history of what you’ve tried.
So they give you advice that’s reasonable given what they know. Which is, by definition, incomplete.
The best advisors solve this partially through relationship depth — they’ve known you long enough that they can read between the lines, they remember the deals you’ve discussed before, they have a mental model of how you think. But that takes years to build and is expensive to maintain.
The other limitation is social. Advisors have relationships with you. That creates friction around the hardest kind of advice — the kind that challenges your thesis when you’re excited, that tells you what you don’t want to hear, that holds your framework against you when you’re trying to bend it.
Good advisors push through that friction. Most don’t, consistently.
The question isn’t whether to have advisors. It’s whether the advice you’re getting is actually calibrated to you, or calibrated to what’s reasonable for a generic operator in your position. Those produce different recommendations. Only one of them is useful.
Leave a Reply