Blog

Here’s what I see in most leadership meetings: Every conversation is about new customer acquisition. Pipeline reviews. Lead generation. Close rates. New logos. Almost nobody asks: How many customers did we lose last month? Why did they leave? What would make them stay? The sales team celebrates new wins. Nobody notices when existing customers quietly churn. Here’s the problem: you can’t out-acquire a retention problem. If you’re losing 15% of customers annually, you need 15% growth just to stay flat. Every dollar spent replacing lost customers is a dollar you can’t spend on actual growth. Today, I’m going to show you why most companies lose customers they should keep, and the framework for building retention into your growth strategy. Let’s dive in. The math that most companies ignore. Acquiring a new customer costs 5-7x more than retaining an existing one. Yet most companies spend 80% of their effort on acquisition and 20% on retention. They build sophisticated sales processes. They invest in marketing. They optimize pipelines. But they have no customer success process. No proactive retention strategy. No one accountable for keeping customers. So they work incredibly hard to win customers, then lose them within 18-24 months. Here’s what this looks like in practice: You close $1M in new business this year. Congratulations. But you lost $400K in existing business. So your net growth is $600K. If you’d kept that $400K and grown it by just 10%, you’d have $440K, with almost no acquisition cost. Instead, you spent heavily to replace lost revenue before you could even think about growth. The lesson: retention isn’t just about keeping customers. It’s about economics that actually work. Why customers leave (and it’s not what you think). Most leaders assume customers leave because: → A competitor offered lower pricing → The product/service wasn’t good enough → The customer’s needs changed Sometimes that’s true. But more often, customers leave because they don’t feel valued. They only hear from you during renewal conversations or upsell attempts. They don’t have a point of contact for proactive support. They’re not sure if you understand their evolving needs. They feel like a transaction, not a relationship. So when a competitor reaches out (or when budget gets tight) they’re open to leaving. Not because you did something wrong. Because you didn’t do enough right. The pattern: customers don’t leave over one bad experience. They leave because of accumulated indifference. What a retention strategy actually requires. Most companies think they have a retention strategy. They don’t. Having account managers isn’t a strategy. Sending renewal reminders isn’t a strategy. Offering discounts to save at-risk accounts isn’t a strategy. A real retention strategy has three components: Proactive customer success processesRegular check-ins that aren’t about selling. Quarterly business reviews. Proactive problem-solving. The goal: understand their evolving needs and address issues before they become reasons to leave. Don’t wait for customers to come to you with problems. Go to them first. Clear retention metrics and accountabilityYou can’t improve what you don’t measure. Track: customer retention rate, revenue retention rate, reasons for churn, lifetime value, time to churn. Make someone accountable for these metrics… not just for new sales. If nobody owns retention, it doesn’t get prioritized. Growth strategies for existing accountsYour best growth opportunity is usually already on the books. Existing customers trust you. They know your quality. They’ve seen you deliver. It’s significantly easier to expand an existing relationship than to win a new one. Build expansion strategies: additional services, new use cases, broader team adoption. Your sales team should spend as much time growing existing accounts as winning new ones. The framework: Building retention into growth. Step 1: Measure what matters Start tracking retention metrics as closely as you track acquisition. Customer retention rate. Revenue retention rate. Churn reasons. Account expansion rate. You’ll probably find patterns you didn’t know existed. Step 2: Build a customer success process Create regular touchpoints that aren’t about selling. Quarterly business reviews. Proactive check-ins. Issue resolution processes. The goal: make customers feel valued and ensure you’re solving their evolving problems. Step 3: Make someone accountable Assign clear ownership of retention metrics. Not just account management – actual accountability for keeping and growing existing revenue. If it’s everyone’s job, it’s nobody’s job. Step 4: Identify expansion opportunities Map your existing customer base. Which accounts have expansion potential? What additional services could they use? What problems are they facing that you could solve? Build expansion into your growth plan, not just new logo acquisition. Step 5: Investigate every loss When a customer leaves, understand why. Not the surface reason (“pricing”). The real reason (“we didn’t feel valued” or “we weren’t sure you understood our needs”). Use this data to improve your retention process. Here’s the lesson: the best growth comes from customers who already trust you. Most companies pour resources into acquiring new customers while existing customers quietly leave. They celebrate closing new business while ignoring the revenue walking out the door. The math doesn’t work. You’re filling a leaky bucket. Fix retention before you scale acquisition. Build customer success processes. Make someone accountable. Measure what matters. That’s how you build growth economics that actually work. Whenever you’re ready, here are three ways we can help…1. Strategy & Growth Blueprint: Market-grounded insights + an annual plan + a 90-day execution board your team owns. 2. Operations & Tech Reset: We map bottlenecks, design future-state processes, and build a phased tech roadmap ready to launch. 3. Manager+ Accelerator: We build core skills in delegation, feedback, goal-setting, and shape leaders who drive execution.

A client hired someone who seemed perfect. Great credentials. Impressive experience. Confident in interviews. Strong references. Three months later, they weren’t working out. The work quality was mediocre. They struggled with ambiguity. They didn’t fit the culture. The CEO was frustrated: “How did we miss this?” Here’s what happened: they hired for credentials and interview skills, not for actual performance. The cost: three months of poor output, time managing them out, 2-3 months to rehire. Nearly six months lost… plus the opportunity cost of what the right person could have accomplished. Today, I’m going to show you the 5 hiring mistakes that create this pattern, and the framework for hiring A-players who actually perform. Let’s dive in. Mistake #1: Relying on interviews to predict performance. Interviews test one skill: how well someone interviews. They don’t test how someone thinks through problems. How they handle failure. How they work under pressure. Whether they fit your culture. Yet most companies make hiring decisions almost entirely on interview performance. The person who presents confidently might struggle with execution. The person with great stories might not handle ambiguity well. The person who says the right things might not do them. What to do instead: Give candidates real work before you hire them. Create a paid project or work sample that mimics what they’d actually do. Need a strategist? Give them a client scenario and ask for their approach. Need an operations person? Have them map a process and identify bottlenecks. Need a salesperson? Have them research your market and pitch a strategy. This reveals how they actually think, work, and deliver (not how they answer hypothetical questions). Mistake #2: Hiring for credentials instead of fit. Someone has an impressive resume. They worked at a big company. They have the right degrees. They check all the boxes on paper. So you hire them. Then you realize: they’re used to structured environments with clear processes. Your company operates with ambiguity and requires scrappiness. Or they’re used to leading big teams. Your company needs someone who executes hands-on. Or they’re used to slow, consensus-driven decisions. Your company moves fast and requires autonomy. Credentials don’t predict culture fit. And culture fit determines whether someone thrives or struggles. What to do instead: Define what success looks like in your specific environment. Do you need: Someone who thrives in ambiguity or prefers structure? Someone who leads or executes? Someone autonomous or collaborative? Then assess whether candidates have operated successfully in similar environments (not just whether they have impressive credentials). Mistake #3: Not testing how they handle failure. Everyone has rehearsed success stories. “Tell me about your biggest accomplishment.” They’ve practiced that answer a hundred times. But how someone handles failure reveals character, judgment, and learning ability. Do they own mistakes? Do they learn from them? Do they deflect blame? Most companies don’t ask about failure. So they miss critical signals. What to do instead: Ask: “Tell me about a significant mistake you made. What happened? What did you learn? What would you do differently?” Great performers own their failures and extract lessons. Weak performers minimize, deflect, or blame others. This question reveals more about someone’s judgment than any success story. Mistake #4: Rushing the process because you need someone fast. Your team is overwhelmed. You need help now. So you compress the hiring process. Fewer interviews. Less rigorous assessment. Faster decision. Then you hire someone who doesn’t work out, and the problem compounds. Now you’re managing poor performance while still being overwhelmed. Then you’re rehiring while managing someone out. What you thought would save time actually costs 6+ months. What to do instead: Hire slower to avoid expensive mistakes. Add work samples. Do more reference checks. Take time to assess fit properly. Yes, your team stays stretched a bit longer. But that’s better than six months of managing poor performance and rehiring. Fast hiring creates slow results. Rigorous hiring creates lasting performance. Mistake #5: Not assessing culture fit properly. Most companies ask surface-level questions: “Do you work well in ambiguity?” “Are you a team player?” “Do you handle feedback well?” Candidates know the “right” answers. So these questions reveal nothing. What you need: actual examples of behavior in situations similar to what they’ll face in your company. What to do instead: Use scenario-based questions: Don’t ask “Do you work well in ambiguity?” Ask “Walk me through a time you had to make a major decision without complete information. What was your process?” Don’t ask “Are you a team player?” Ask “Tell me about a time you disagreed with your team. How did you handle it?” Don’t ask “Do you handle feedback well?” Ask “Tell me about the most difficult feedback you’ve received. How did you respond?” Scenarios reveal real behavior. Direct questions just test whether someone knows what you want to hear. The framework: Hiring A-players who perform. Step 1: Define success in your specific context. What does great performance look like in this role in your company? What environment will they work in? What challenges will they face? Be specific. Don’t just copy a generic job description. Step 2: Test real work. Create work samples or paid projects that reveal how they think and deliver. Don’t rely on interviews alone. Test actual performance. Step 3: Assess for fit, not just credentials. Have they succeeded in environments similar to yours? Do they thrive in the conditions they’ll face? Credentials matter. Fit determines whether they’ll succeed. Step 4: Probe failure and judgment. Ask about mistakes, difficult decisions, and how they’ve handled setbacks. Great performers own failures and learn. Weak performers deflect. Step 5: Use scenarios to assess culture. Don’t ask if they have qualities. Ask for examples of behavior in similar situations. Past behavior predicts future performance better than any interview answer. Here’s the lesson: hiring mistakes are expensive (not just in salary, but in time, opportunity cost, and team morale). Most companies hire for credentials and interview skills. Then they’re surprised when performance doesn’t match. The companies that build … Read more

A senior leader at a 500+ person firm was working 70-hour weeks. Stressed. Overwhelmed. Behind on strategic priorities. When we reviewed their calendar, the problem became clear: They were still reviewing all marketing materials, despite having a head of marketing. They were still checking transaction details, despite having an accounting team. They’d hired capable people. But they hadn’t actually delegated the work. Here’s what happened: they stayed buried in operational tasks while strategic priorities—planning for the future of the business—got ignored. Their team couldn’t grow because they were never given real responsibility. The leader became the bottleneck. This isn’t unique. Leaders take on too much. They can’t let go. Their team can’t develop because they’re never truly empowered. Today, I’m going to show you the 5-step process for delegating effectively—so you can free yourself up to focus on what only you can do. Let’s dive in. Step 1: List everything on your responsibility plate. Most leaders don’t actually know what they’re doing. They’re reacting to emails. Attending meetings. Solving problems. But they’ve never documented their full workload. Start here: write down everything you’re responsible for. Client relationships. Marketing reviews. Financial oversight. Team management. Strategic planning. Operational decisions. Get it all on paper. You can’t delegate what you haven’t identified. Step 2: Assess enjoyment and importance for each task. Now evaluate each responsibility on two dimensions: How much do you enjoy this work? (High or Low) How important is it that you personally do this? (High or Low) This creates four categories: High Importance + High Enjoyment = Keep it. These are tasks only you can do and that energize you. Protect these. High Importance + Low Enjoyment = Keep it (for now). These matter but drain you. Look for ways to systemize or eventually delegate. Low Importance + High Enjoyment = Delegate it. You like doing it, but it’s not strategic. Give it to someone who can grow from it. Low Importance + Low Enjoyment = Delegate it immediately. This work doesn’t need you and doesn’t energize you. Move it off your plate. The pattern: if it’s not high importance AND high enjoyment, it’s a candidate for delegation. Step 3: Determine who’s best suited to take it on. For each task you want to delegate, ask: who on my team is the best fit? Consider: Who has relevant skills or experience? Look for natural matches based on their background. Who would benefit from developing this skill? Delegation is a growth opportunity. Who’s ready to stretch? Who has shown interest in this type of work? People perform better when they care about what they’re doing. Don’t just delegate to whoever has time. Match tasks to people who can succeed and grow from them. Step 4: Assess their capacity… time, interest, and ability. Before you delegate, confirm three things: Do they have time? Don’t pile work on someone already buried. Free up their plate first if needed. Do they have interest? People resist tasks that feel forced. Make sure they see value in taking this on. Do they have ability? Can they do this now, or will they need training? Be realistic about their readiness. If any of these is missing, address it before delegating. Otherwise, you’re setting them up to fail. Step 5: Create an action plan to transition the responsibility. Delegation isn’t “here, you do it now.” That creates chaos. Build a transition plan: Define success clearly. What does good look like? What outcomes matter? Give them clarity upfront. Provide context and training. Don’t assume they know your process. Show them how you’ve been doing it and why. Set checkpoints early. Schedule reviews in the first few weeks to catch issues before they compound. Transfer authority with responsibility. If they’re accountable for outcomes, give them decision-making power. Otherwise, they’ll keep escalating to you. Step back progressively. Start with more oversight, then reduce it as they prove capable. The goal: they own the work, not just execute tasks you assign. What happened with that senior leader. Remember the leader reviewing marketing materials and transaction details? We walked them through this process. They listed their responsibilities. Assessed what truly needed them. Identified team members ready to step up. Then we built transition plans. Marketing reviews went to the head of marketing with clear criteria for escalation. Transaction oversight went to the accounting lead with defined thresholds. The result: the leader freed up 15+ hours per week. They finally had time for strategic planning, looking at the future of the business instead of being buried in operations. Their team grew too. The head of marketing gained real ownership. The accounting lead developed judgment on when to escalate vs. solve independently. Delegation isn’t about getting out of work. It’s about doing work only you can do… and empowering your team to grow.   Here’s the lesson: leaders who can’t delegate can’t scale. You become the bottleneck. Your team can’t develop. Strategic priorities get ignored. Most leaders know they should delegate more. But without a process, it stays on the “someday” list. The leaders who scale effectively follow this framework: they identify what’s on their plate, assess what truly needs them, match tasks to the right people, confirm capacity, and build transition plans. That’s how you free yourself up to focus on what only you can do. Whenever you’re ready, here are three ways we can help… 1. Strategy & Growth Blueprint: Market-grounded insights + an annual plan + a 90-day execution board your team owns. 2. Operations & Tech Reset: We map bottlenecks, design future-state processes, and build a phased tech roadmap ready to launch. 3. Manager+ Accelerator: We build core skills in delegation, feedback, goal-setting, and shape leaders who drive execution.

You’re about to spend two days and thousands of dollars on a leadership offsite. Your team will fly in. Discuss priorities. Take notes. Then go home. Three months later, nothing has changed. Here’s the problem: most offsites are expensive conversations, not productive sessions. Teams arrive unprepared. Discussions lack structure. Sessions turn into status updates. Today, I’m going to show you the 5 mistakes that kill offsite productivity—and the framework that drives real outcomes. Let’s dive in. Mistake #1: No pre-work means wasted time. Most offsites start cold. Leaders show up without context. They haven’t reviewed data or thought about strategic questions. So the first half becomes an information dump. By the time you get to real discussion, you’re out of time. What to do instead: Start the offsite before anyone gets on a plane. Gather data. Send pre-reads. Ask everyone to come prepared with perspectives on specific questions. Every minute should focus on generating insights, not catching people up. Mistake #2: No clear outcomes defined upfront. Most teams enter with vague goals: “Let’s align on strategy” or “We need to discuss priorities.” Those aren’t outcomes. They’re topics. Without clear outcomes, conversations drift. Debates go in circles. Nothing gets decided. What to do instead: Define success before the offsite. What decisions need to be made? What should the team leave with? Be specific. Not “align on strategy” but “decide which three markets we’ll focus on in Q1.” Mistake #3: Treating it like a status update meeting. Each department head presents their work. Marketing shares campaigns. Sales reviews pipeline. Operations talks projects. That’s not an offsite. That’s a long meeting. What to do instead: Send status updates beforehand. Use the offsite to tackle genuine strategic challenges that require the full leadership team. Don’t waste time on information that could be shared asynchronously. Mistake #4: No facilitation means circular debates. Without a facilitator, discussions go in circles. Strong personalities dominate. Decisions get deferred. Two days later, you’ve talked about everything and decided nothing. What to do instead: Use a facilitator to keep sessions structured. Their job: keep discussions focused, ensure everyone contributes, push for decisions, capture commitments. This transforms casual conversation into structured problem-solving. Mistake #5: No follow-up means no execution. Most offsites end with great intentions. The team feels aligned. They’ve made decisions. Then they go back to their day jobs. The offsite deck sits in a folder. Nothing happens. What to do instead: Build follow-up into the offsite design. Create a one-year roadmap with quarterly objectives. Define 90-day success. Assign owners. Schedule follow-up sessions to review progress. The real work happens after the offsite. The framework: Offsites that drive outcomes. Pre-Offsite Discovery: Align on strategic questions. Gather data ahead of time so every minute focuses on insights, not information sharing. Structured Pre-Work: Team members share perspectives beforehand, ensuring the session tackles genuine challenges. Facilitated Session: Transform meetings into structured problem-solving. Address well-defined questions. Emerge with clear goals and next steps. Plan Development: Create a one-year roadmap with quarterly objectives and accountability. Focus on tangible short-term wins. Execution Support: Schedule regular follow-up to refine strategy, cascade the plan, and keep everyone aligned. Here’s the lesson: bad offsites happen by accident. Good offsites are designed by intention. Most companies skip pre-work, define vague goals, lack facilitation, and don’t follow up. The companies that get offsites right? They prepare intentionally. They facilitate structured discussions. They leave with 90-day execution plans. They follow up relentlessly. That’s how you transform expensive meetings into actionable strategy. Whenever you’re ready, here are three ways we can help… 1. Strategy & Growth Blueprint: Market-grounded insights + an annual plan + a 90-day execution board your team owns. 2. Operations & Tech Reset: We map bottlenecks, design future-state processes, and build a phased tech roadmap ready to launch. 3. Manager+ Accelerator: We build core skills in delegation, feedback, goal-setting, and shape leaders who drive execution.  

I got this question last week from a prospect: “Can we just automate it?” They were drowning in manual work. Their team was overwhelmed. AI and automation tools are everywhere now, and they figured technology could solve their problems. I get it. We look at automation for our own business too. But here’s what I told them: automating a broken process just gives you a faster way to produce bad outcomes. As AI continues to expand, businesses are rushing to automate everything they can to save money and improve efficiency. The pressure is real. The tools are accessible. The promise is compelling. But most companies are automating in the wrong order, and making their problems worse. So today, I’m going to show you how to assess what to automate, when to automate it, and the framework for doing it right. Let’s dive in. Why automating broken processes makes things worse. Here’s the pattern we see constantly: A company has a manual process that’s slow, inconsistent, and frustrating. They decide to automate it. They implement new technology. And the problems multiply. Why? Because automation doesn’t fix bad processes. It scales them. If your process has bottlenecks, automation makes those bottlenecks faster but doesn’t remove them. If your data is inconsistent, automation spreads that inconsistency at scale. If your handoffs are unclear, automation just creates automated confusion. The result: you’ve spent money and time implementing technology that made the underlying problems worse, not better. Here’s what should happen first: develop strong processes and clean data before looking to automate. Get things running well manually. Then use technology to speed up what’s already working. The framework for assessing what to automate. Not everything should be automated. And nothing should be automated before the process is sound. Here are the questions to ask before implementing automation: Question #1: Is the process clearly defined and documented? If people are doing the work differently every time, automation won’t help. It will just automate inconsistency. First, standardize the process. Document it. Make sure everyone follows the same steps. Question #2: Is the data clean and reliable? Automation depends on good data. If your data has errors, duplicates, or inconsistencies, automation will amplify those problems. First, clean your data. Establish standards. Make sure the inputs are reliable. Question #3: Are the current bottlenecks process-related or volume-related? If the bottleneck is a broken process (unclear handoffs, missing steps, poor communication) automation won’t fix it. First, remove the process bottleneck. Then, if volume is still the constraint, automation can help. Question #4: Does the process require judgment or is it rules-based? Automation works best for repeatable, rules-based tasks. If the work requires judgment, context, or adaptation, humans should stay involved. Automate the repetitive. Keep humans where judgment matters. Question #5: What’s the cost of getting this wrong? Some processes are low-risk. Automating them makes sense even if they’re not perfect. Other processes (like client communications or financial decisions) have high stakes. Start with low-risk automation. Build confidence. Then expand to higher-risk areas. The roadmap for piloting new processes and automation. If you’ve answered those questions and determined that a process is ready for automation, here’s how to pilot it effectively: Step 1: Define clear goals. What are you trying to achieve? Faster turnaround? Reduced errors? Lower costs? Be specific. Vague goals like “improve efficiency” don’t give you a way to measure success. Step 2: Assess current processes and KPIs. Document how the process works today. Measure current performance—time, cost, error rate, whatever matters. You need a baseline to know if automation actually improved things. Step 3: Refine the process and remove bottlenecks. Before adding technology, fix what’s broken. Eliminate unnecessary steps. Clarify handoffs. Standardize the approach. This is the step most companies skip—and why their automation fails. Step 4: Put technology in place to speed up the process. Now that the process is sound, implement the automation. Start small. Pilot with one team or one workflow. Don’t try to automate everything at once. Step 5: Review what’s working. After the pilot, measure results against your baseline. Did you hit your goals? What broke? What worked better than expected? Use this data to refine before expanding. Step 6: Automate and scale. Once the pilot proves the automation works, expand it. But keep monitoring. Technology doesn’t stay effective forever—processes evolve, and automation needs to evolve with them. Here’s the lesson: automation is powerful. But only when applied to processes that are already working. Fix the process first. Then use technology to scale what’s effective. Most companies do it backward. They automate first and hope it fixes their problems. It doesn’t. It just creates expensive, automated chaos. The companies that get automation right follow a disciplined approach: strong processes and clean data first, then technology to accelerate what’s already working. That’s how you make automation pay off. Whenever you’re ready, here are three ways we can help… 1. Strategy & Growth Blueprint: Market-grounded insights + an annual plan + a 90-day execution board your team owns. 2. Operations & Tech Reset: We map bottlenecks, design future-state processes, and build a phased tech roadmap ready to launch. 3. Manager+ Accelerator: We build core skills in delegation, feedback, goal-setting, and shape leaders who drive execution.

Here’s a pattern I see constantly in growing companies: The leader is still the best at doing the work they should be delegating. They’re the top salesperson. The best marketer. The go-to problem solver. This feels like strength. It’s actually a ceiling. Because they’ve never built the processes, systems, or training to transfer their skills to others. So they stay stuck doing work someone else should handle. This happens in sales, marketing, tech, and delivery. When leaders drive forward independently or ad-hoc, even if the company is growing, they become the constraint. So today, I’m going to show you the 3 signs you’re the bottleneck—and how to build systems that let your team execute without you. Let’s dive in. Sign #1: You’re still the top performer in something you should be leading. Here’s what this looks like: The leader closes more deals than anyone on the sales team. The leader writes better content than the marketing team. The leader solves technical problems faster than the engineering team. The leader manages client relationships better than the account team. This isn’t leadership. This is doing. What’s actually happening: you never built the processes or training to transfer your skills. You know how to close deals, but you haven’t documented your approach. You know what makes good marketing, but you haven’t created a framework others can follow. You can solve technical problems, but you haven’t built troubleshooting processes. So your team depends on you. And you stay stuck doing work someone else should handle. The cost: your company can only grow as fast as you can personally execute. What should happen: you transition from doing the work to building the system that teaches others how to do it. Sign #2: Your team is capable but keeps escalating to you. This is the most frustrating version. You’ve hired smart people. They’re capable. They want ownership. But they keep coming to you for direction. They escalate decisions. They wait for approval. Why? Because you’ve never given them the process or authority to execute independently. They don’t know your methodology, so they can’t do it like you do. They don’t understand your decision-making framework, so they can’t make calls like you do. They don’t have clear authority, so they wait for your approval. The problem isn’t capability. It’s missing systems. Teaching someone takes longer than doing it yourself initially. So most leaders just keep doing it. They never “have time” to teach and empower others. This creates a permanent ceiling on growth. What should happen: you build the infrastructure that lets capable people execute independently. You document processes. You create decision frameworks. You give authority along with responsibility. Sign #3: Growth happens when you’re involved, stalls when you’re not. Here’s the pattern: Things move when you’re driving them. Things stall when you’re absent. This reveals the problem: the business runs on your personal involvement, not on systems that work without you. You’ve been making ad-hoc decisions instead of building repeatable processes. You close deals by figuring it out on the fly. You solve problems by personally intervening. You make decisions based on gut feel. Each time, you solve the immediate issue. But you don’t create a system that prevents it from requiring your involvement next time. The result: your team gets good at escalating problems to you, not solving them independently. What should happen: every time you solve something, you ask: “How do I build a process so this doesn’t need me next time?” You document the decision framework. You create the troubleshooting guide. You train your team on the approach. That’s how you remove yourself as the bottleneck. Here’s what I’ve learned: the leaders who scale successfully don’t try to be the best at everything. Instead… 1) They build systems that let other people be good at it. 2) They document their approach. They train their teams. They give people the tools and authority to execute without constant oversight. 3) They transition from doing to teaching. From executing to enabling. If you’re the bottleneck, the company can only grow as fast as you can personally execute. Build the systems. Let your team run them. Whenever you’re ready, here are three ways we can help… 1. Strategy & Growth Blueprint: Market-grounded insights + an annual plan + a 90-day execution board your team owns.2. Operations & Tech Reset: We map bottlenecks, design future-state processes, and build a phased tech roadmap ready to launch.3. Manager+ Accelerator: We build core skills in delegation, feedback, goal-setting, and shape leaders who drive execution.

Stop talking about your strategy I saw a post this week that stuck with me.“Don’t say ‘strategy.’ Say ‘the way we’re going to win.’” It’s a simple reframe. But it captures something I see in almost every client engagement.Leaders use business jargon that sounds strategic but means nothing to the people who need to execute. They say “strategy” when they mean “how we’ll win.”They say “positioning” when they mean “what we’re competing against.”They say “vision” when they mean “what we want to happen.” The words sound professional.But they create distance between leadership and execution.So today, I’m going to show you the 3 types of jargon killing your clarity, and how to replace them with language that actually drives action. Let’s dive in. 1. Replace strategic jargon with clear direction. Most strategy conversations sound like this: “We need to align on our strategic positioning and cascade our vision across the organization.” What does that actually mean? Here’s the translation: “We need to agree on what makes us different and make sure everyone knows where we’re headed.” But most teams hear the first version and nod along without really understanding what they’re supposed to do. Here’s what to say instead: Don’t say “strategy.” Say “the way we’re going to win.” Don’t say “positioning.” Say “what we’re comparing ourselves to.” Don’t say “vision.” Say “what we want to happen.” The pattern: jargon sounds strategic but creates confusion. Clear language drives action. When you replace business buzzwords with plain language, two things happen: Your team understands what you actually mean. And they can start executing immediately instead of translating your words into actionable steps. 2. Replace operational jargon with concrete processes. Strategic jargon isn’t the only problem. Operational language can be just as vague: “We need to optimize our workflows and leverage synergies across functions.” Translation: “We need to fix the handoffs between teams and stop duplicating work.” But when you use words like “optimize” and “leverage,” people hear corporate-speak, not instructions. Here’s what to say instead: Don’t say “optimize processes.” Say “fix the bottlenecks slowing us down.” Don’t say “leverage synergies.” Say “stop doing the same work twice.” Don’t say “increase bandwidth.” Say “free up time by removing tasks.” Don’t say “enhance collaboration.” Say “make sure teams actually talk to each other.” The clearer your language, the faster your team can act. Vague operational terms sound professional but create no urgency. Concrete language identifies the actual problem that needs solving. 3. Replace leadership jargon with honest expectations. Leadership language might be the worst offender. “We need to empower our people and drive accountability across the organization.” What does that mean in practice? Here’s the reality: “We need to give people authority to make decisions and make sure they follow through.” But “empower” and “drive accountability” are so overused they’ve lost meaning. Here’s what to say instead: Don’t say “empower your team.” Say “let them make decisions without checking with you first.” Don’t say “drive accountability.” Say “make sure people do what they commit to doing.” Don’t say “build alignment.” Say “get everyone working toward the same goal.” Don’t say “foster transparency.” Say “share information so people know what’s happening.” The difference: jargon sounds like leadership. Clear language creates it. Here’s what I’ve learned after working with 35+ companies: The businesses that execute fastest don’t use better jargon. They use clearer words. They say what they mean. They eliminate translation steps. They make it easy for their teams to understand and act. This isn’t about dumbing things down. It’s about respecting your team’s time enough to communicate clearly. Don’t say things people need to translate. Just say what you mean. Whenever you’re ready, here are three ways we can help… 1. Strategy & Growth Blueprint: Market-grounded insights + an annual plan + a 90-day execution board your team owns.2. Operations & Tech Reset: We map bottlenecks, design future-state processes, and build a phased tech roadmap ready to launch.3. Manager+ Accelerator: We build core skills in delegation, feedback, goal-setting, and shape leaders who drive execution.

The Real Edge: Clarity of Execution Over the last 3 months, my perspective on strategy has shifted entirely. Today, I want to tell you how by explaining how winners compete in saturated markets. First, Some Background For years, I’ve told clients that strategy is the differentiator – define how you win, clarify what makes you meaningfully different. That still matters. But something’s shifting. In industries like construction, healthcare, and insurance, being strategically different is becoming harder. Everyone’s using similar tools, hiring similar people, and offering similar services. The real edge now is Clarity of Execution. In tight, mature markets, strategy sets direction, but tactics prove you can get there faster. Most companies have similar strategic goals and customer targets. So if everyone’s strategy sounds the same, the advantage moves downstream, into how well and how visibly you execute. Clients don’t experience your strategy on paper. They experience your process, communication, and reliability. That’s where trust is built, and where deals are won. Mistake #1: Competing on words, not proof Many companies still rely on saying “we’re faster, better, more efficient.” But when proposals, credentials, and promises sound identical, prospects can’t tell who truly delivers. Fix: Replace claims with evidence. Show turnaround metrics, before/after case studies, or client testimonials that make your advantage tangible. Takeaway: In crowded markets, visible proof beats polished positioning. Mistake #2: Hiding operational excellence behind closed doors Great teams often lose deals because their excellence only shows after they’re hired. Prospects never get to see their real strengths. Fix: Make your process visible early. Show response times, communication cadences, and how you manage changes mid-project. Takeaway: Show how you work before someone pays you, don’t make them imagine it. Mistake #3: Treating execution as a delivery issue, not a sales advantage Many believe “execution” only matters once a deal closes. But in 2025, buyers choose based on how well you demonstrate execution before signing. Fix: Bring your execution story into marketing, sales, and planning. Position your business not by what you do, but by how you consistently deliver results. Takeaway: The most convincing strategy is one people can already see in motion. Wrapping Up This article isn’t about abandoning 10-years of strategy. It’s about reframing what competitive advantage looks like today. Your strategy still defines your direction. But your tactics prove you can execute better than anyone else. And in mature markets, that’s the difference between winning and losing. Whenever you’re ready, here are three ways we can help… 1. Strategy & Growth Blueprint: Market-grounded insights + an annual plan + a 90-day execution board your team owns.2. Operations & Tech Reset: We map bottlenecks, design future-state processes, and build a phased tech roadmap ready to launch.3. Manager+ Accelerator: We build core skills in delegation, feedback, goal-setting, and shape leaders who drive execution.

3 reasons – strategy never gets executed You just paid $150,000 for a consulting engagement. The deck looks great. The recommendations are smart. But six months later, nothing has changed. Here’s why: you paid for outputs when you needed outcomes. So today, I’m going to show you the 3 differences between outputs and outcomes… and how to avoid expensive shelfware. Let’s dive in. Outputs are deliverables. Outcomes are business results. Most consulting firms create impressive outputs. Strategy decks. Process maps. Technology roadmaps. These are artifacts the consultant produces. But what actually matters:Did your team get stronger?Did revenue increase?Did costs decrease? Those are outcomes, the business improvements you paid for. The gap looks like this: A consultant delivers a strategy deck. That’s an output. But if the strategy never gets implemented, there’s no outcome. A consultant maps your operational bottlenecks. That’s an output. But if those bottlenecks never get fixed, there’s no outcome. A consultant builds a technology roadmap. That’s an output. But if that roadmap never gets executed, there’s no outcome. The pattern: consultants get paid for outputs. You only benefit when outcomes happen. Outputs end at delivery. Outcomes require execution. Most consulting engagements fail at the same point. The consultant delivers the final presentation. Then they’re gone. That’s when the hard part begins, execution. Your team has to figure out how to implement the recommendations. Navigate internal politics. Allocate resources. Overcome resistance. Most organizations don’t have the bandwidth for this. They’re already stretched thin. So the recommendations sit. Nothing changes. What should happen: the consultant stays engaged through execution. They don’t disappear when the real work begins. They guide implementation and help navigate obstacles. Companies that get hands-on partnership scale faster than companies that get expensive advice. Outputs impress in meetings. Outcomes show up in metrics. Most consultants measure success by client satisfaction during the presentation. Did the leadership team like it?Did they seem impressed? But satisfaction in a meeting and actual business results are different things. Here’s the real measure: six months later, can you point to specific improvements?Did team performance improve?Did revenue increase?Did costs decrease? Those metrics tell you whether you paid for outcomes or just outputs. The next time you’re evaluating a consulting engagement, ask these questions:→ What specific outcomes will this drive, not just what deliverables will we receive?→ Who stays engaged through execution, or do they hand off and leave?→ How do they measure success, by our satisfaction or our results? The difference between outputs and outcomes is the difference between impressive presentations and actual business improvement. Whenever you’re ready, here are three ways we can help… 1. Strategy & Growth Blueprint: Market-grounded insights + an annual plan + a 90-day execution board your team owns.2. Operations & Tech Reset: We map bottlenecks, design future-state processes, and build a phased tech roadmap ready to launch.3. Manager+ Accelerator: We build core skills in delegation, feedback, goal-setting, and shape leaders who drive execution.

What I Learned at Deloitte Being right doesn’t matter if no one executes your recommendations. After years at Deloitte and now running StrengthsInsights, I’ve learned the most important lesson of my career: quality of delivery. Not quality of analysis.Not quality of presentation.Quality of delivery.And most consultants optimize for the wrong one. So today, I’m going to show you the 3 ways quality of delivery differs from quality of analysis (and why this distinction determines whether strategic work actually drives results). Let’s dive in. Difference #1: Quality of analysis asks “Is this correct?” Quality of delivery asks “Can they execute this?” Most consulting firms optimize for whether the work is technically correct. Is the analysis thorough?Are the frameworks smart?Do the recommendations make sense? But that’s only half of what matters. Quality of delivery asks a different question: Can the client actually execute this? Here’s what that means: Do the recommendations account for organizational constraints, not just theoretical best practices? Are solutions tailored to how the organization actually works, not how it should work in a perfect world? Does the work build buy-in with the people who have to execute, not just impress executives in a boardroom? I’ve seen brilliant strategies that never got implemented because they ignored these questions. And I’ve seen simpler recommendations that drove massive results because they optimized for execution. Most consultants hand off slide decks with impressive analysis. The work might be correct, but if it doesn’t get implemented, it doesn’t matter. Difference #2: Quality of analysis creates frameworks. Quality of delivery creates systems that work day one. Here’s the pattern I see: Most consultants deliver PowerPoint decks that explain what should be done. The deck outlines the strategy.It presents the framework.It looks impressive in meetings. Then it sits in someone’s email and nothing changes.Quality of delivery means we don’t leave you with decks, we build systems that work day one. Our projects don’t end with PowerPoint presentations.They have clear actions and deliverables that can be immediately implemented. For example: In our Strategy & Growth Blueprint, we don’t just recommend “cascade your strategy.” We build the department-level OKR templates, facilitate the alignment sessions, and create the scorecards that track progress. In our Operations & Tech Reset, we don’t just suggest “optimize your tech stack.” We audit the systems, map the bottlenecks, rank redundancies by cost impact, and provide the 6-month implementation roadmap. In our Manager+ Accelerator, we don’t just advise “improve delegation.” We build the delegation matrix, conduct time-on-task analysis, and create the quick-start delegation guide. Everything is designed for your specific business and ready to use immediately. No theoretical frameworks.No generic templates.Just tools that work on day one. Difference #3: Quality of analysis measures success by deliverables. Quality of delivery measures success by results. This is the distinction that changed everything for me. Most consultants optimize for impressive deliverables. But at StrengthsInsights, we don’t optimize for impressive presentations. We optimize for implementation that sticks. That’s why our team stays engaged for a minimum of 90 days after each project to complete and guide the execution. We don’t disappear when the real work begins.We help you implement what we’ve built together. We’re not measuring success by whether you liked our slide deck. We’re measuring success by whether you got results. Did the strategy actually get cascaded across the organization?Did the operational bottlenecks actually get fixed?Did the managers actually improve their delegation and team performance? Expertise without execution is just expensive advice.Quality of delivery means the work actually works. The lesson from my Deloitte days shaped how I built my entire business. Most consulting firms optimize for impressive deliverables.We optimize for implementation that sticks. We deliver high-quality work, are transparent, communicate effectively, and are honest.But most importantly… we’re genuinely invested in our clients’ success beyond our engagement.Because being right doesn’t matter if nothing changes. Whenever you’re ready, three ways we can help… 1. Strategy & Growth Blueprint: Market-grounded insights + an annual plan + a 90-day execution board your team owns. 2. Operations & Tech Reset: We map bottlenecks, design future-state processes, and build a phased tech roadmap ready to launch. 3. Manager+ Accelerator: We build core skills in delegation, feedback, goal-setting, and shape leaders who drive execution.