| Day | Type | Purpose | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Tue | Content Launch | Announce the article |
| 2 | Thu | Two Things | Value (clock insight) + offer (diagnostic) |
| 3 | Fri | Direct Meeting Ask | Book the diagnostic |
| 4 | Sat | Story / Confession | Personal story about wrong clocks |
| 5 | Sat | Drive to LinkedIn | Boost TL post engagement |
I published a new piece today called The Wrong Clock.
The core thesis: every transformation your practice sells runs on one of three clocks — effort-based, time-based, or hybrid. Most scoping conversations treat them all the same. That mismatch is invisible until a good client fires you for work that was actually landing.
A consultant I worked with lost two clients in the same quarter. One engagement was stretched — effort-based work on a six-month calendar when it needed eight focused weeks. The other was compressed — compounding work promised in 60 days when the physics needed six months.
Same consultant. Same skills. Same scoping conversation for both. The clock was wrong on both.
The piece includes three interactive tools: a clock check for your last engagement, a phrase decoder that reveals which clock your scoping language assumes, and a scoping simulator where you classify a real project.
If the clock question resonates and you want to classify every offer in your practice by transformation type, the Systems Diagnostic is where we do that together.
Kathryn
I've got 2 quick things for you today. The second one might save you a client.
1. The Systems Diagnostic is open this week
If you're scoping engagements by deliverables and duration — but you've never classified which type of transformation you're actually selling — this is where we do that.
60 minutes. We map every offer in your practice to its transformation type and find the mismatched clocks. You leave knowing which timelines to fix and what the scoping conversation should sound like instead.
2. The one question that changes your scoping conversation
Before you set a timeline on your next proposal, ask: does this transformation compress with effort, or does it require compounding regardless of how hard we push?
If effort — price for intensity. The client pays more for faster execution because the timeline genuinely compresses.
If compounding — position with patience built in before the contract is signed. The client who hears "this will take time" and still buys is pre-qualified for the arc.
One question. Applied on every prospect call. That's the difference between scoping by feel and scoping by physics.
PS: The diagnostic calendar fills up fast. If the clock question landed, grab a slot this week.
Kathryn
I would like to meet with you this week to cover 3 things, one-on-one:
First, which of your current engagements are on the wrong clock — effort-based work on time-based timelines, or compounding work with effort-based deadlines.
Second, what the scoping conversation should sound like for each transformation type so the client understands the arc before they sign.
Third, whether building the clock classification into your process makes sense for where your practice is right now.
I'm booking these conversations this week. 60 minutes. No cost.
Find a time on my calendar here
Kathryn
PS: If you're not ready for a call, just reply and tell me what you're working on. I read everything.
I help practice owners build operational systems. I've been doing this for years.
And I've set the wrong clock on my own engagements.
Early on, I scoped a process documentation project as a six-month retainer. The work was effort-based — I could have delivered the full system in six weeks at full intensity. But six months felt more professional. More substantial. The client would see the value over time.
By month three, the client started asking pointed questions about "refinements." By month four, they'd privately decided this was the last advisory engagement they'd approve. I lost the renewal and the two referrals that would have followed a tight, impressive delivery.
I didn't have a delivery problem. I had a classification problem. I put effort-based work on a time-based calendar because the longer timeline felt right.
That experience is why I built the clock classification into every scoping conversation I run now. Before I set a timeline, I ask one question: what type of change is this — and what timeline does the physics demand?
If that sounds familiar, the Systems Diagnostic is where we classify every offer in your practice and find the clocks that don't match the work.
Kathryn
PS: If you're not ready for a call, reply and tell me which engagement felt off. I read everything.
I just posted something on LinkedIn about the scoping phrase most consultants use that sounds professional but sets the wrong timeline on half their engagements.
The post walks through the same phrase — "You should see results within 90 days" — used on two prospect calls the same week. One call, it was honest. The other, it created a deadline the physics couldn't meet.
The comment thread is filling up with consultants naming phrases from their own scoping conversations that they've started questioning.
If you'd rather skip LinkedIn, reply to this email with the phrase and I'll respond directly.
Kathryn
PS: The thread is most active today and tomorrow. After that, the algorithm buries it.