Employee Engagement Specialist | Organizational Change Coach | Empowering Organizations to build a competency for ongoing change | Lean-Agile implementation expert with 30+ Years of Innovation | SPCT | Candidate ILM

Your best people aren't going to tell you they're leaving. They're just going to leave.
By the time someone hands in their notice, the decision was made months ago. A promotion path that went nowhere. A manager who stopped listening. A conversation that never happened.

Most companies find out too late. Then they pay 4x what they thought turnover costs when you add the productivity loss, the project delays, the knowledge walking out the door, and the team stretched thin covering the gap.

I spent 20 years implementing transformation programs at Fortune 500 companies. Watched them obsess over efficiency while bleeding millions in preventable departures they never saw coming.

I co-authored "The Trillion Dollar Problem" to document what most executives miss. Then I co-founded 
Clover ERA to fix it.

Clover ERA shows you which teams are about to break. Before the resignations start.

Daily anonymous check-ins surface what's building beneath the surface. Managers see the patterns and get specific prompts to act. You intervene while there's still time.

We don't prevent every departure. We prevent the ones that didn't have to happen. The ones where someone was waiting for a conversation that never came.

Preventing one departure costs a fraction of replacing them.
If you're losing people you didn't see coming, let's talk.

📅 Schedule Your Free Turnover Analysis: https://outlook.office.com/book/TurnoverAnalysis@cloverera.com/?ismsaljsauthenabled
🔍 Or take the free Team Health Assessment: https://cloverera.com/team-health

Clive Hays

70% of her team disappeared in 10 minutes. 
Block offered her a 90% raise to stay. 
She quit the next day.

She was a data scientist at Cash App. The morning after the layoff, she looked around. The only people left on her immediate team were her and a new hire who'd started three days earlier.

The CEO posted about it on X like a product announcement. The stock jumped over 20%. Analysts called it efficient.

She called it something else. She said she felt immense dread and survivor's guilt. She said a company that can snap away half its people doesn't need two weeks notice from her either.

Here's what the CEO saw: a leaner company, rising stock, proof the market rewards speed.

Here's what she saw: empty Slack channels, a team that no longer exists, and a raise that felt like hush money.

74% of HR leaders say morale takes 4 to 12 months to recover after a layoff. Most CEOs expect it done in 3 months. That gap is where your best people quietly update their CVs.

Block still has 6,000 employees. Nobody is asking how their managers are holding those fractured teams together right now. Nobody is measuring what those managers can see and what they're missing.

The next layoff at Block won't come from the CEO. 
It'll come from the people who stayed.

How many of your surviving managers know what their team is actually feeling this week?

I help CEOs/CFOs stop pre-automation turnover bleeding competitive advantage before AI works

A VP of HR showed me her 2025 exit data last month.
"$3.1M in replacement costs. But we know exactly why they left."

I asked if she'd spoken to any of them since.

Three. All friends.

What they told her over coffee wasn't on any exit interview. Their manager had gone quiet months before the resignation. Promises made about progression. No follow-through. One of them had raised the same concern four times. The last time, she stopped raising it.

"Why didn't they say that in the interview?" she asked.

Because they needed the reference.

Nobody tells the truth in an exit interview. The real reasons get told to friends, to recruiters, to the next company's hiring manager. Not to the person who controls the final paycheck and the reference call.

Exit interviews don't tell you why people left. They tell you what people were willing to say.

Who on your team has a version of events they'd never put on paper?

A VP of HR showed me her 2025 exit data last month. Forty-seven departures. $3.1M in replacement costs. Every single one with a completed exit intervi

Open article: The $3.1M Lie Nobody Talks About by Clive Hays • 4 min read

A Head of Product told me her senior PM left for a competitor last month. Zero warning. "Probably cost us $180K," she said. I ran the numbers. $340K. 

I asked if the PM had shown any signs. "None. We talked every Friday. She told me everything." I pulled the 1:1 notes from the last four months. 

In August, the PM asked to lead the enterprise rollout. Her manager said the timing wasn't right. 

In September, she asked again. Same answer. 

In October, she stopped asking. She also stopped challenging priorities in sprint planning. 

Stopped sending those long Friday recap emails her manager used to joke took ten minutes to read. Her manager noticed. "I figured she was finally learning to pick her battles." 

That's not what was happening. She'd started interviewing in October. 

The signals were there for 90 days. 

Her manager saw every one of them. 

She just filed them under "growth" instead of "gone." 

What did someone on your team stop doing that you filed under progress?

A CEO told me he works 65 hours a week.
Said it like a badge of honour.
I asked him a simple question.

"How many of those fires started because a manager didn't see it coming?"

He went quiet. Started counting on his fingers.

The resignation in March that "came out of nowhere." The team conflict in April that took three weeks to untangle. The project that blew up in May because nobody flagged the morale problem.

He stopped at seven.

Seven fires in five months. All traceable to managers who didn't know what was happening on their own teams.

Here's what nobody talks about.

Only 37% of managers received any training when they were promoted.

The CEO working 65 hours isn't more dedicated than the one who leaves at 5pm.

They just have managers who are flying blind.

How many hours are you working because your managers can't see what's coming?

A CFO told me last month they lost $4.2M to turnover last year. I asked what they were doing about it.

"We have someone for that. Talk to HR."

I did. The Head of People showed me their budget. $340K. Annual surveys. A recognition platform with 11% adoption. Quarterly pulse checks that leadership reads once then files.

I asked if she had the authority to change comp bands when someone's underpaid. No.

If she could restructure teams when a manager's underwater. No.

If she could override a promotion decision when someone's been passed over twice. No.

"So what CAN you do?"

"I can measure how people feel about the things I can't change."

That's the job you gave her. Measure the bleeding. Report the numbers. Watch the best people leave. Then get blamed when the exit interview explains exactly what you weren't allowed to fix.

The CEO handed a $4M problem to someone with a $340K budget and no authority to touch the levers that actually matter. Manager behavior. Workload. Promotion paths. Comp decisions. All of those roll up to operations. None of them roll up to HR.

Then leadership acts shocked when turnover stays high.

You didn't delegate the problem. You just made sure nobody with power was accountable for solving it.

Turnover costs 4x what you're tracking. It's not an HR problem. It's a P&L problem. And the person who owns the P&L just sent me to someone who can't fix it.

Which executive on your leadership team can tell you, right now, what turnover actually cost you last year? Not the rate. The cost.

A CEO asked me last week why his VP of Product resigned. "Zero warning," he said. "Probably cost us $80K to replace her." I ran the math. 
$340K.

"Did her behavior change in the weeks before?"

"Actually... yeah. She got quieter in leadership meetings. Stopped pushing back on roadmap decisions. I figured the town hall aligned her. That she finally understood the bigger picture."

"What did you say at the town hall?"

"The usual. Company update. Market conditions. Mentioned we're exploring AI efficiency gains for 2026."

"When did she resign?"

"Six weeks later."

I talked to her before she left.

"What made you start looking?"

"The town hall. He said we're exploring AI efficiency gains. I heard: we're exploring whether we still need you."

"Did you ask him what he meant?"

"What was I supposed to say? 'Are you planning to replace me with AI?' That makes me sound paranoid. Or threatened. Either way, I lose."

I asked the CEO if he'd thought about how that comment would land.

"I was trying to be transparent. Show we're thinking ahead. I thought it would build confidence that we're not going to get disrupted."

Two weeks after she left, his Head of Engineering resigned. Then a senior designer.

Three people. $890K in replacement costs.

He was trying to show the company he's preparing for the future.

They heard: prepare to be replaced.

What did you say about AI in the last 60 days that your best people are still thinking about?

Block cut 4,000 people. Stock jumped 20%. Meta is planning to cut 15,000. Stock jumped 3%. Nobody is asking what happens next.

Here's what happens next.

The managers who survived those cuts were already undertrained. 82% of managers in the UK get promoted with zero formal training. That number is no better in the US. They were accidental managers before the layoffs. Now they're accidental managers holding fractured teams together with fewer people, more work, and no visibility into how their team is actually doing.

The CEO is watching the stock price. The CFO is modelling the savings. The analysts are calling it "efficiency."

The managers are staring at half-empty Slack channels wondering which of their remaining people is updating their CV right now.

Block's CEO said "a significantly smaller team can do more and do it better." He might be right about the tools. He's wrong about the people. Smaller teams don't perform better when the person running them was never equipped to run them in the first place.

50% of workers with an ineffective manager plan to leave within 12 months. That clock started the day of the layoff. Not the day someone finally notices.

The layoffs made the news. The management failure won't. Not until the voluntary exits start in 90 days and nobody connects it back to the manager who was promoted from engineering two years ago and never got a single day of training.

How many of your managers right now could tell you what their team is actually feeling this week?

A CFO asked me last week how many people on his team were actively interviewing. I told him I didn't know.
"Then how can you tell me I'm losing $8.4M to turnover?"

"Because I can see the 67-day window. The gap between when someone decides to leave and when they tell you. That's where the cost is hiding."

He asked how many people were in the window right now.

I told him: "Eleven."

He went quiet. Then asked which ones.

"I can't tell you names. Clover ERA is anonymous. But I can show you the patterns. The withdrawal. The silence. The 'just staying in my lane' behavior. Those are the Already Gone signals."

He pulled up his 1:1 notes. Scrolled through three months. Looked up.

"I thought they were getting easier to manage."

Yeah. That's the signal most leaders miss. When your biggest critic stops criticizing. When your detail person stops asking for details. When your 'why are we doing it this way?' person starts saying 'sounds good.'

It doesn't mean they trust you more.

It means they've already decided to leave.

Who on your team got "easier" in the last 67 days?

A CFO called me yesterday. Four resignations. Eight days. All of them after one email.

He'd read the Citrini memo the weekend it dropped. The one predicting a white-collar recession by 2028. His board called the following Monday.

"We need to be prepared."

By Tuesday he'd made three decisions. Stopped backfilling two open roles. Deferred a promotion that was supposed to happen in March. Sent an email that afternoon freezing the Q2 training budget.

"I thought it would show we were being prudent. That we were taking the future seriously."

I asked how long between the email and the first resignation.

"Wednesday. One day."

A senior product manager. Then Thursday, an engineer. Friday, another engineer. Yesterday, his finance lead.

"Did any of them mention the email?"

"Emily did. The product manager. She said 'I saw the training freeze. I know what that means.'"

I asked what it meant.

"That there's no future here."

I asked if she was right.

Long silence.

"We were preparing for 2028. She needed to know about 2026."

The four resignations cost him $1.1 million to replace. The email took him four minutes to write.

Wall Street is calling it the AI scare trade. Hedge funds shorting white-collar employment as an investment thesis.

Your board read the memo. You sent the email. Your best people read it as confirmation.

Not of what's coming in 2028.

Of what they already suspected in 2026.

What email are you about to send that will confirm what your best people are already thinking?

A VP of Engineering told me his lead architect resigned six weeks after her quarterly review. She'd gotten a 4.2 out of 5. "Exceeds expectations."

"Probably cost us $120K to replace her," he said. I ran the math. $340K.

"What changed between the review and the resignation?"

"Nothing. That's what I don't understand. The quarterly was great. We covered her Q1 goals, talked about the migration she'd led, asked if she had any concerns. She said no."

"What happened in those six weeks?"

"We announced the product roadmap for Q2. Shifted some priorities. Moved her migration work to maintenance mode so she could support the new platform build."

"Did you tell her that in the quarterly?"

"No. The roadmap wasn't finalized yet. We told the team two weeks later."

"How'd she react?"

"Fine. She said 'makes sense' and started on the new work. Then four weeks later she resigned. Told me she'd accepted a role where she could see projects through."

The quarterly review covered January, February, March. It happened April 2nd. The roadmap announcement happened April 16th. She decided to leave April 18th. She resigned May 14th.

The review said she was exceeding expectations. The roadmap said her work didn't matter anymore. The gap between those two conversations: 14 days.

Who on your team got a great review right before you changed their priorities?

A CFO showed me his 2025 turnover numbers last month. $4.2M in losses.
I asked who owned it. "HR handles that."

I talked to his Head of People. She had a $340K budget. Surveys. A recognition platform with 11% adoption. Pulse checks leadership reads once then files.

I asked if she could change comp bands when someone's underpaid. No.

Restructure teams when a manager's underwater. No.

Override a promotion decision when someone's been passed over twice. No.

"So what can you do?"

"I can measure how people feel about the things I can't change."

That's the job he gave her. Measure the bleeding. Report the numbers. Watch the best people leave. Then get blamed when the exit interview explains exactly what she wasn't allowed to fix.

Here's what most CFOs miss. Turnover doesn't show up as "turnover cost" on the P&L. It's scattered. Recruiting fees under talent acquisition. Overtime in payroll. Lost deals in sales slippage. Consultant hours in professional services.

By the time you reconcile it, the damage is two quarters old and attributed to something else.

CFOs track CAC down to the dollar. They model gross margin by product line. Then they treat a $4M margin leak like it's an HR initiative.

The levers that prevent turnover—manager behavior, workload, comp decisions, promotion paths—don't roll up to HR. They roll up to operations.

You didn't delegate the problem. You just made sure nobody with power was accountable for solving it.

Turnover costs 4x what you're tracking. It's not an HR problem. It's a P&L problem.

Full breakdown in today's newsletter.

A CFO told me last month his company lost $4.2 million to turnover last year. I asked what he was doing about it. "We have someone for that. Talk to H

Open article: Employee Turnover: A CFO Problem, Not an HR Problem by Clive Hays • 6 min read

Employee Turnover: A CFO Problem, Not an HR Problem

CEOs at midsized companies. I am writing a book. 
The follow-up to Already Gone.
I need your help with research.

Already Gone looked at why good people leave companies they did not want to leave. This one looks at why the systems businesses use to understand and develop their managers are not working — and what that gap is actually costing.

We are calling it the Manager Gap.

Most mid-market companies are running two to three systems simultaneously that they believe constitute a managed people strategy.
Surveys that measure how safe employees feel answering a question, not what they are actually experiencing.

Training programmes selected from catalogues with no access to the live team signal.

And in some cases, monitoring tools whose dashboards show green because the real conversation quietly moved to channels the system cannot see.

None of these systems knows what the others found out.

The gap between them has been on the P&L the whole time.
We have built an instrument to measure it.

It is called the Manager Gap Index.

It takes less than 10 minutes. It produces a score from 0 to 100 and a full cost breakdown across six impact layers — attrition, disengagement, performance drag, promotion risk, innovation suppression, and customer impact.

We are building the first benchmark dataset for mid-market companies. We need 100 participants to make the data meaningful.

If you are a CEO, CFO, or COO at a company with 200 to 500 people (or a VP overseeing a division of this size), I would like to run your score with you on a 10-minute call.

You get your MGI Score and full cost breakdown + the full analysis report when published, as a thank you for participating. 

I get your anonymised data for the benchmark research that underpins the book.

Your data contributes to it. Your name does not — unless you want it to.
Every participant receives a signed copy of Already Gone, posted to wherever you are in the world.

First 100 only.

Comment below or send me a message and I will send you the booking link.

A CEO told me last month he had zero turnover risk.
I asked: "Do you know who's in the 67-day window?"
"What window?"

"The gap between when someone decides to leave and when they tell you. That's 67 days on average. During that time, they're interviewing. Negotiating offers. Mentally checked out. And you're paying them full salary while they plan their exit."

He asked how many people were in the window right now.

I told him: "Seven."

"Which ones?"

"I can't tell you names. But I can show you the teams. And the patterns. And the cost if they all resign in the next 90 days."

He asked what that cost would be.

"$2.1M. For seven people you think are fine."

He didn't think he had a turnover problem. He was wrong. He just couldn't see the 67-day window.

Most CEOs can't. That's why they're blindsided when someone resigns.

Do you know who's in your 67-day window right now?

A COO at a mid-size tech company showed me his 2025 retention spend last month. $180K across surveys, a platform, a culture consultant, and manager training workshops.

"We take this seriously," he said.

I pulled up the latest Gallup numbers on my laptop and turned the screen toward him. Global engagement just hit a 10-year low. After the biggest investment in engagement solutions in history.

He looked at the data for about ten seconds. "So the whole industry just... doesn't work?"

Not the way it's being sold.

A survey tells you how someone felt on the day they filled it in. It doesn't tell you what their manager said to them the following Monday. Or didn't say. That's where it lives. Not in a platform. Not in a score. In a conversation that either happened or it didn't.

$438 billion in lost productivity last year. Not because companies didn't try. Because the solutions were measuring the wrong thing and calling it fixed.

The industry sold you the receipt. Not the result.

Which line on your 2025 retention spend changed what a manager actually does on a Tuesday morning?

I’ve always been obsessed with building things that matter. When I started CloudHire, it wasn’t just about hiring—it was about changing how businesses find and retain top talent globally.

I was remote before it was mainstream.
I was AI-powered before it was a buzzword.
I saw the future of hiring the world is finally catching up to.

__
How I Think About Hiring
I don’t believe hiring is just about filling roles. It’s about building high-performance teams that scale businesses. The best companies don’t just hire employees—they attract top-tier talent, foster innovation, and retain the people who drive growth.

That’s what I do best—connecting companies with the top 1% of talent worldwide.

__
How I Operate
I move fast, cut through inefficiencies, and get results.
I use AI + human expertise to vet and place top talent in engineering, AI, data, and customer success.
I’ve built elite global teams for venture-backed startups, Fortune 500s, and high-growth companies.

__
My Mission
I don’t just build hiring systems—I build opportunities, scalable businesses, and innovation at a global level.

If you’re scaling a company, hiring elite talent, or thinking about the future of work—let’s connect. 🚀

Sufiyan I.

For many people, job searching has quietly become a second full-time job. 
Except this one doesn’t pay. 

Hours spent tailoring resumes. 
Days tracking applications that never get acknowledged. 
Weeks preparing for interviews that end in silence. 

The work is real. 
The output just isn’t guaranteed. 

What makes it harder isn’t rejection. 
It’s uncertainty. 

You don’t know if the resume was wrong, the timing was off, or the role was never real to begin with. 
So you optimize everything, keywords, formats, follow-ups, until the search itself becomes the job. 

And unlike a real job, there’s no feedback loop. 
No manager saying “this is working.” 
Just more effort and less clarity. 

This isn’t about resilience or hustle. 
It’s about a system that offloads risk onto candidates and calls it efficiency. 

If hiring wants better outcomes, it has to respect one simple truth: 
People aren’t unemployed because they’re idle. 
They’re exhausted from trying.

CEO at Cloudhire. Building the identity layer of recruitment.

Nobody tells you this part of job searching. 

You apply during the day. 
You perform optimism on calls. 
You say “happy to follow up” like it doesn’t cost anything. 

But the real weight shows up at night. 

That moment when you’re replaying an interview answer you already gave. 
Wondering if “great chat” meant anything. 
Counting how many times you’ve refreshed your inbox without meaning to. 

Job hunting isn’t hard because of rejection. 
It’s hard because of suspension. 

You’re not rejected. 
You’re not accepted. 
You’re just… paused. 

And no one pays you for that mental load. 

This is why good candidates disappear. 
Not because they’re weak. 
Because waiting quietly is exhausting. 

If you’re in that place right now you’re not behind. 
You’re just carrying more than most people admit.

One day, you wake up and your product works perfectly. 
The next day, the internet starts closing doors on you. 

Links throttled. 
Domains shadow-banned. 
Communities quietly say, “Not this again.” 

Not because the tech failed. 
Because it worked too well at the wrong layer. 

AI founders didn’t set out to kill the internet. 
They optimized for scale, speed, and output. 
And accidentally flooded every surface with things that look human but feel empty. 

Spam dressed as insight. 
Automation posing as conversation. 
Growth without consent. 

The backlash isn’t ideological. 
It’s biological. 

Humans can sense inauthenticity faster than they can explain it. 
Platforms respond by tightening gates. 
Communities respond by going private. 

Suddenly, your breakthrough becomes radioactive. 

The lesson isn’t “build less AI.” 
It’s built AI that earns presence, not just distribution. 

The future won’t belong to the loudest models. 
It’ll belong to the ones who know when to shut up.

Everyone is a prompt engineer now. 

That’s not the advantage. 
That’s the floor. 

The real leadership gap isn’t who can talk to AI. 
It’s who knows what to ask, when to trust it, and when to override it. 

Teams don’t fail because the prompt was bad. 
They fail because no one owned the judgment after the answer showed up. 

AI can generate options. 
Leadership decides direction. 

AI can move fast. 
Leadership decides what not to ship. 

In 2026, the strongest leaders won’t be the best prompt writers. 
They’ll be the clearest decision-makers in rooms full of machine-made certainty. 

Everyone can ask questions now. 
Very few can stand behind the answer. 

That’s the leadership divide.

Recruiters Are Quiet‑Quitting the Profession (And It’s Your Pipeline That Dies) 

Founders obsess over engineering churn. 
They track attrition, morale, velocity. 

Recruiter churn? Invisible. 
Until the pipeline starts rotting. 

The signs show up late: 
Roles take longer to fill. 
Candidates feel disengaged. 
Follow-ups slip. Signal drops. 

Not because recruiters forgot how to hire. 
Because the job quietly became untenable. 

No hiring clarity. 
Constant priority whiplash. 
“Urgent” roles paused mid-process. 
Success measured on speed, not quality. 

So good recruiters stop pushing. 
They stop fighting broken reqs. 
They stop investing emotionally. 

And when recruiters disengage, your pipeline doesn’t fail dramatically. 
It just slowly starves. 

Hiring isn’t a system problem first. 
It’s an operator problem. 

If your recruiters look tired, vague, or transactional, 
that’s not a people issue. 
That’s an early warning. 

By the time engineering feels the pain, 
the damage is already done.

Founders chase AI agents as "teammates," but most pilots fail without this prompt framework - tested live at #CloudHire.

The 2026 Agentic AI Deployment Framework (40% of enterprises scaling, yet 70% stall on ownership):

• Role Charter (5 lines max): "You own X outcome. Inputs: Y data. Guardrails: No Z decisions. Success: Metric W by EOD." Vague? Agent drifts 80% of time.

• Signal Loop: Daily 1-field check-in: "What traded off? Output delta? Blockers owned?" Catches hallucination early our ops agent hit 92% autonomy after Week 2.

• Fallback Human: Escalate only on ambiguity >20% confidence. Last month, this cut my intervention 65% on sourcing tasks.

• Economics Gate: If agent saves <2x human hours/week, kill it. Piloted on 3 workflows: Kept 2 (sourcing + docs), axed 1 (outreach).

Applied to CloudHire: Sourcing velocity up 4x, zero bad leads. Agents amplify judgment, not replace it.

Women are 49% of new U.S. founders. 
Corporate talent systems still act like they don’t exist. 

Women now make up nearly half of new entrepreneurs.
They’ve built companies with no safety net, no brand halo, and no guaranteed paycheck. 

Yet most hiring systems still reward one path: 
Linear titles. Big-company logos. “Clean” resumes. 

They struggle to read five years of scrappy founding as leadership. 
They discount side hustles, shutdowns, pivots, and survival as “non-traditional.” 

That’s not a pipeline problem. 
That’s a filtering problem. 

If your hiring criteria can’t recognize 
“someone who built something from nothing” 
as leadership material, the criteria are broken. 

Founders learned judgment, resilience, hiring, selling, and decision-making the hard way. 

Especially women who had to earn credibility twice. 

The question isn’t whether this talent exists. It’s whether your system is capable of seeing it.

Most people think leadership in HR is empathy.

It isn’t.
That’s the baseline.

Leadership is what you do after you understand the pain.

HR leaders don’t fail because they don’t care.
They fail when they translate everyone’s emotions instead of making decisions.

Real leadership in HR looks harder:

Saying no to a founder when the hire will break the team.
Calling out “culture” when it’s being used to excuse bad management.
Designing systems that prevent burnout instead of hosting another wellness webinar.

The strongest HR leaders don’t ask,
“How do I support everyone?”

They ask,
“What decision protects the company and the humans long after this quarter?”

If your role is only to smooth things over, you’re not leading.
You’re buffering.

And buffers always burn out first.

AI founders love the phrase “all-in.” 
It sounds brave. It sounds necessary. 

What we don’t say out loud is the bill that comes later. 

Missed school events because a training run couldn’t wait. 
Postponed conversations because “after this launch.” 
Relationships downgraded to background processes. 

Not out of cruelty. 
Out of momentum. 

The industry rewards intensity, not sustainability. 
Deadlines don’t care if you showed up for dinner. 
Metrics don’t record what quietly eroded along the way. 

The uncomfortable truth: 
Most founders aren’t afraid of burnout. 
They’re afraid that slowing down means falling behind. 

But there’s a difference between commitment and collateral damage. 
One compounds. 
The other just disappears things you don’t get back. 

Building something meaningful shouldn’t require pretending the rest of your life is expendable. 
That’s not focus. 
That’s deferred cost. 

The real question isn’t “are you all-in?” 
It’s what you’re silently paying to stay there.

taplio

The Battle

Clive Hays

Sufiyan I.

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreClive Hays's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreSufiyan I.'s LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Clive Hays

Sufiyan I.

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Clive Hays's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreSufiyan I.'s LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreClive Hays's LinkedIn Performance