When Advice Stops Being Opinion

Advice is plentiful. Alignment is not.

Most advice is given without consequence. It can be thoughtful, well reasoned, and even correct, yet it remains optional. It can be accepted, ignored, or selectively applied without cost.

This is not a failure of intent. It is structural.

When incentives diverge, advice competes with momentum. The founder is rewarded for progress. The advisor bears no downside if the advice is ignored.

This dynamic changes when consequences are shared.

When advice is tied to long-term outcomes, the tone shifts. Short-term optimisation loses appeal. Saying no becomes easier. Certainty becomes more expensive.

This does not guarantee better advice. It changes behaviour.

Time horizons lengthen. The advisor becomes more cautious about conviction. The founder becomes more open to dissent. Decisions are evaluated not just for plausibility, but for durability.

This kind of alignment should be rare.

It requires trust, restraint, and a willingness to walk away when conviction is absent. It also requires recognising that not every situation benefits from shared risk.

When it works, something subtle happens.

Advice stops being a stream of suggestions and becomes part of the decision process itself. Not because authority has increased, but because responsibility has.

The point is not influence.

It is accountability.

When founders and advisors share consequences, advice stops being opinion and starts behaving like judgement.