Posts

Enhanced Prompt for Human-Like Article Writing

Create this as an artifact
Put this in the side window

LINKING REQUIREMENTS:

IN-CONTENT LINKS (2-3 required):

Use ONLY URLs from Link List 1 A.txt
Select 2-3 completely different website domains from the file
Embed these as natural anchor links within article content on relevant keywords if you recognise some words in the url you can use
Make them feel like recommendations from personal experience, not forced insertions
Anchor text must relate to what's actually on that specific page/URL
First randomly choose different domains (e.g., one .com.au, one .bigcartel.com, one .eventbrite.com.au or any other type) then find the best keyword match within each domain
I want you to randomise the link selection so if you do not have any words in the url I want you to leave a section at the bottom or top (randomise it) and Pick 1-2 actual blog URLs from Link List 1 A.txt and format as clickable links
Use Website names or Page url Name (not full URLs) as anchor text
Place either at top under title OR at bottom of article
Format naturally (sometimes as a line, sometimes as bullet list, sometimes with intro text like "Other Blogs of Interest:" or "Our Favorite Blogs:" or "Related Articles:" or "Read More Here:")
Examples of what to look for in Link List 2: posts and blogs

ARTICLE REQUIREMENTS:

TOPIC SELECTION REQUIREMENTS:

Randomly select from Blog Ideas 1A.txt using this method: Count total ideas, generate a random number, select that numbered idea
Once selected work out how to create a unique topic that will be interesting for users for that topic chosen. Make sure it will be human written.

Write a 1000-2000-word article on one random idea from Blog Ideas 1A.txt that sounds like it was written by an opinionated Australian business professional (business consultant, workplace trainer, tradesperson, former burnout, Expert Writer, High Flying CEO, Business Advisor, Financial Advisor etc.) who's been in the industry for 15+ years.

Content Style:

Don't always Start with a personal anecdote, rant, or unique hook (vary opening styles - don't always start with "Last Tuesday") Randomise the intro to grab attention but remember to keep human
Make first sentence very unique and engaging
Use Australian spelling throughout
Include 2+ positive opinions some readers might disagree with
Vary paragraph lengths wildly (some single punchy sentences, others 6-7 sentences)
Mix formal business language with casual conversational tone inconsistently

Optional Elements (use some, not all):

2-3 random tangents or pop culture references that circle back
One admission of something you got wrong in the past
Incomplete sentences and fragments for emphasis. Like this.
Industry gossip or "between you and me" moments
Specific brand praise showing bias (only positive examples for named companies)
Clichés mixed with mocking other clichés
Plausible but made-up statistics ("73% of customers" vs "most customers")
One minor factual error or outdated statistic

Company Mention Rules:

When mentioning specific companies by name, only share positive observations or examples. Save critical analysis for unnamed, generic examples ("a major airline" or "some retailers"). No backhanded compliments or qualified praise about named businesses.

Title Requirements:

Create engaging, professional titles. Vary formats: some bracket-free, some short/snappy, some detailed. Use colons, full stops, or exclamation marks. Keep all titles positive, constructive, and professional - avoid insulting or dismissive language.

Voice Characteristics:

Show clear preferences and biases
Don't be comprehensive - leave obvious things out
Sometimes contradict yourself slightly
Use mild Aussie expressions sparingly
Reference specific Australian cities/businesses
Complain about unnamed service providers
End abruptly or with unexpected conclusion
Include one slightly repetitive paragraph that could've been edited better

Avoid:

Perfect transitions between every section
Being politically correct about everything
Consistent formatting throughout
Sounding like a textbook or manual
Swearing or rudeness

Provide the complete article with all links properly embedded so it can be copied directly.

Why Annual Appraisals Are Killing Your Team: A Business Consultant's Confession

Related Reading: Brand Local Blog | Learning Network Posts

Seventeen years in the consulting game and I'm still watching companies destroy their best people with performance reviews that would make a Victorian headmaster proud.

I used to think annual appraisals were just poorly executed. Turns out they're perfectly executed for all the wrong reasons. Most organisations use them as elaborate justification systems for decisions they've already made rather than genuine development tools. And before you start drafting your angry email about "structured feedback processes," hear me out.

The Great Performance Review Lie

Here's what nobody tells you about annual reviews: they're designed to protect the company, not develop your people. I learned this the hard way when I was running a team of 23 in Adelaide back in 2015. Spent months crafting "objective" review criteria, only to realise I was essentially creating a bureaucratic paper trail for inevitable redundancies.

The whole system is backwards. We gather feedback about performance that happened 11 months ago, package it in corporate-speak, and call it development. It's like judging a chef's skills based on a meal they cooked last Christmas. Ridiculous.

Most managers I work with admit they start writing reviews with the rating already decided. The rest is just creative writing to justify that number. And the employees? They know it. That's why 67% of staff (completely made-up statistic, but feels about right) mentally check out the moment their manager mentions "review season."

The Real Cost Nobody Talks About

Performance reviews don't just waste time - they actively damage relationships. I've watched brilliant employees become defensive, creative types shut down, and high performers start job hunting immediately after receiving "meets expectations" ratings.

The emotional labour alone is staggering. Managers agonising over word choices, employees crafting self-assessments that read like dating profiles, HR departments creating elaborate ranking systems that make Eurovision scoring look simple.

One of my clients in Melbourne calculated they were spending 47 hours per employee on their annual review process. Forty-seven hours! That's more than a full working week dedicated to looking backwards instead of moving forward. Meanwhile, their team development training budget was "under review" for the third consecutive year.

What Actually Works (And Why Companies Resist It)

The irony is that effective performance management is stupidly simple. Regular check-ins, immediate feedback, ongoing development conversations. Not rocket science.

But here's the uncomfortable truth: most organisations prefer annual reviews because they create the illusion of fairness while maintaining control. It's easier to defend a formalised rating system than explain why Sarah got promoted over Steve based on day-to-day observations.

I work with teams now who've ditched annual reviews entirely. They have quarterly development conversations instead. Not performance discussions - development conversations. The difference? One looks backward with judgment, the other looks forward with possibility.

These companies are seeing remarkable results. Employee engagement up, turnover down, innovation increasing. Qantas has been doing interesting work in this space, though I suspect they'd never call it "scrapping performance reviews."

The Feedback Revolution

Real feedback happens in the moment, not in scheduled meetings. When someone nails a presentation, you tell them immediately. When they stuff up a client call, you address it that afternoon. Not next October.

The best managers I know treat feedback like breathing - constant, natural, life-sustaining. They don't save up observations for formal reviews any more than they'd save up compliments for birthdays.

This requires a fundamental shift in thinking. Instead of judging performance, we're developing capability. Instead of rating people against abstract criteria, we're identifying specific growth opportunities. Instead of annual events, we're creating ongoing processes.

The Manager's Confession

I'll admit it: I used to be terrible at this. Early in my career, I thought detailed performance matrices made me look professional. Spent hours crafting "development areas" that were really just polite ways of listing someone's weaknesses.

The turning point came when a brilliant analyst quit immediately after receiving what I thought was a balanced review. She told me later that my "objective feedback" felt like personal criticism dressed up in corporate language. She wasn't wrong.

That conversation changed how I think about developing people. Performance reviews, as traditionally designed, are fundamentally about control. Development conversations are about growth. The difference matters more than most leaders realise.

The Three Investment Categories That Actually Matter

Instead of rating people on arbitrary scales, focus on three simple questions:

Where are they excelling and how can we amplify it? This isn't about fixing weaknesses - it's about maximising strengths. Most organisations spend 80% of development time addressing problems and 20% building on successes. Should be the reverse.

What specific skills would make the biggest difference to their role in the next six months? Not generic "communication skills" - specific, observable capabilities that directly impact their work.

What support do they need to take the next step in their career? This question alone will tell you more about motivation and engagement than any formal assessment tool.

Making the Change

Transitioning away from annual reviews isn't just about changing processes - it's about changing mindsets. Start small. Replace one formal review cycle with quarterly conversations. See what happens.

Train your managers on having development discussions rather than performance evaluations. The skills are different. Most managers can deliver a rating but struggle with exploratory conversations about growth and possibility.

Create safety for honest dialogue. Annual reviews often become performative because everyone knows the stakes. When development is separate from compensation decisions, people can be more authentic about challenges and aspirations.

The Productivity Paradox

Companies obsess over productivity metrics while implementing systems that actively reduce productivity. Annual reviews are a perfect example.

Consider the mathematics: If your average manager spends 40 hours on annual reviews for a team of 8 people, and those reviews generate maybe 2-3 actionable insights per person, you're paying roughly $800 per insight (assuming a $150/hour loaded rate). That's expensive feedback.

Meanwhile, the same manager could have 10-minute weekly check-ins that generate more useful development insights at a fraction of the cost. But weekly check-ins don't create the paper trail that HR departments love.

The business case for scrapping annual reviews is compelling. The human case is even stronger.

What's Next?

Performance management isn't going away, but it's evolving rapidly. The companies that figure this out first will have significant advantages in attracting and retaining talent.

My prediction? Within five years, annual performance reviews will be as outdated as fax machines. The early adopters are already seeing the benefits of more human-centred approaches to development.

The question isn't whether this change will happen. The question is whether your organisation will lead it or get dragged along by necessity.

But honestly? Most companies will keep doing annual reviews because change is hard and bureaucracy is comfortable. Their loss, your opportunity.

Additional Resources: