# Why we banned two sentences at Joobs. The first piece in our manifesto series

> fter 20 years around tech startups, this is the failure mode I see most often. Two sentences. Two camouflages. Why we banned both at Joobs.

- **Author:** David Verbustel
- **Category:** YSs2UMCjXWkLxhzffb26
- **Published:** 2026-04-30
- **Language:** en

## Two sentences I banned from my startup
There are two sentences nobody is allowed to say at Joobs.
"That's just how it works." "That's just how I am."
Both are everywhere. In meetings. In feedback conversations. In the moment someone is asked to change something and doesn't want to. Both sound reasonable. Both are camouflage.
The first one hides behind tradition. The second one hides behind identity. Neither engages with what's actually being asked.
When someone says "that's just how it works" about something that's been broken for years, what they're really saying is: I don't want to fix it, and I'd like you to stop asking. Same logic for "that's just how I am". It dresses up "I don't want to change" as a personality trait, which makes it untouchable. You can't argue with someone's identity. That's exactly why the sentence is so useful to whoever uses it.
I've spent close to 20 years around tech startups. As a founder, as an advisor, as a mentor, as a business coach. Working inside teams and watching others from the outside. Across all of that, this is the single failure mode I see most often. And the reason I'm writing about it now is that I don't want it taking root at the company I'm building.
## What it looks like in real companies
A bug nobody fixes because "that's just how the code works". A feedback loop that goes silent because "that's just how Marc is". A pricing model nobody touches because "that's how the market works". A founder who can't take feedback because "that's how I've always been".
I've watched all of these play out, in companies of every size and stage. The pattern is the same. Within six months, the team learns which topics are off-limits, which people are immovable, and which problems they should stop raising. Conversations narrow. Energy leaks out. The company stops being a startup and becomes a museum.
What's painful is that nobody planned this. Nobody walks into a Monday meeting and says "I'd like us to become a place where the obvious problems can't be discussed". It happens by accumulation. Someone uses one of these two sentences. Nobody pushes back. The next time the topic comes up, the rest of the team already knows it's untouchable. Within a quarter, the founder is the only one still surprised.
## Why this is in our culture manifesto
At Joobs we have a culture manifesto. It's a working document. It explains what working here looks like, what we expect, and what we won't accept. Courage. Transparency. Owning what you ship. Having an opinion at every level, intern included. The kinds of principles that sound generic until you actually have to live by them.
One of the rules in that manifesto is that those two sentences are banned. Out loud.
I'm under no illusion that we're immune. We're early, we're a small team, and the same forces that produce these sentences in every other company will try to produce them here. The difference is that we've named them. Once a thing is named, it's harder to pretend it isn't there. Anyone in the team, including me, can hear one of those sentences come out and call it. That's the point.
## The rule applies to me too
This is the part most founders get wrong, and the part I've watched go wrong most often in the companies I've coached. They write the principles, then exempt themselves. Opinions are mandatory, except mine, which are decisions. Feedback flows up and down, but mostly down. The principle decorates the wall and nothing else.
That's the version of the trap that hurts the most, because it teaches everyone in the room that the rule is theatre. If the founder uses one of the banned sentences and nobody can call it, the rule no longer exists. It's worse than not having had the rule at all, because now the team knows you don't mean any of the others either.
So the rule has to apply to me. When one of my co-founders tells me I'm doing something wrong and I catch myself reaching for "that's just how I am", I stop. I don't say it. Sometimes I disagree with the feedback. Sometimes I think they're missing context. Either way, I have to engage with the actual content. I don't get the camouflage either.
## What to say instead
When someone is tempted to reach for one of the banned sentences, the move is simple. Replace it with the real thing.
 Instead of "that's just how it works", try "I don't see how to change it" or "I think the cost of changing it is higher than the benefit." Now we have something to discuss. Maybe you're right. Maybe I have information you don't. Either way, we're talking.
 Instead of "that's just how I am", try "I don't think I can change this in the next month" or "this is harder for me than you realize." Now we have something to work with. We can plan, we can support, we can be patient. The conversation moves.
Both replacements are harder to say. That's the point. The banned sentences were easy precisely because they shut everything down.
## The diagnostic
If you've spent any time in startups, you already know the version of this you've lived. The colleague who never changes. The process everyone hates and nobody touches. The founder who can't take feedback. Every one of those situations, somewhere underneath, has one of these two sentences holding it in place.
Pull the sentence out. The rest usually unblocks itself.

---
*Source: [Joobs.be](https://joobs.be/en/blog/why-we-banned-two-sentences-at-joobs-the-first-piece-in-our-manifesto-series)*