Craig Leach, MBA

Welcome to where transforming companies and careers with precision-tailored executive placements and progressive leadership coaching meets personalized solutions that align with your unique culture and strategic goals. If you're here, you're likely seeking to attract and retain top-tier talent in a competitive market, align leadership teams with corporate strategy and culture, navigate leadership transitions without disrupting operations, and ensure new hires are the right fit for long-term success.

With over 30 years of experience in leading teams, I guide executives from uncertainty and misalignment to building high-performing teams that drive results. Is reducing time spent on recruiting or mis-recruiting on your radar? Do you aspire to increase productivity and performance? If these aspirations resonate, you've found your path.

I blend my diverse skills in negotiation, business planning, operations management, sales, market development, and leadersip with my passion for talent development, crafting strategic solutions that truly represent your organization's needs. This strategy allows you to transform your leadership capital and achieve sustainable success.

My 21st Century technology-influenced approach uses personalized executive search and coaching to create long-term impact that delivers reduced commercial downtime, improved employee retention rates, and reduced overall costs to hire. I empower hiring managers to make confident decisions, so 96% of our placements are still in place after 12 months.

What you can expect:
• Minimized client commercial downtime
• Improved new employee retention rates
• Reduced overall costs to hire

Your outcomes:
• 96% of placements still in place after 12 months
• 94% of placements still in place after 24 months

Embrace a journey that transforms your organization through strategic leadership development and succession planning. Ready to start?

I offer different ways to work with me to suit your budget and needs:
• Retained Search: Exclusive tailored executive search and coaching solutions, best suited for senior leadership positions (C-Suite, VPs, Directors)
• Contingency Search: Exclusive search for technical, sales, and marketing roles
• Executive Coaching: Tailored, one-on-one partnerships to empower leaders and high-potential professionals to maximize performance and achieve personal and organizational goals

Who it's for:
• C-suite executives
• Senior managers
• Emerging leaders
• Professionals transitioning to higher leadership roles

Begin your journey: https://calendly.com/6202205911/30min

President

Craig Leach

The most expensive thing a CEO can have is a recruiter who won't say no.

A Fortune 500 company offered me $75K to find their next CFO.

I walked away.

Not because of the money. Because of what I heard in the boardroom.

"We need someone who can clean house. Fire 30% of finance. No questions."

I asked what was driving the 30% number.

"We promised the board headcount reduction. Easier to hire fresh talent at lower salaries."

They weren't looking for a CFO. They were looking for an executioner.

Their last three CFOs? All lasted under 18 months. Turnover rate? 47%. One former CFO told me they made him fire people who'd been there 20 years—good people—then blamed him when culture imploded.

A "yes" recruiter would have taken that search. Cashed the check. Placed someone. And watched them burn out in a year.

Then done it again. And again.

I offer a 1-year placement guarantee. Risk definitely outweighed the reward.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗬𝗲𝘀-𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗿𝘂𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗖𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗬𝗼𝘂:

• The $75K fee—three times over
• Six CFOs in three years
• Stock down 34%
• Glassdoor rating: 2.1 stars
• Every good candidate now knows to stay away

The recruiter fee was never the expense.

The expense was nobody saying: "This isn't a search problem. This is a leadership problem."

After 200+ placements, I've learned this:

The best thing I can do for a client isn't always finding them a candidate.

Sometimes it's telling them they're not ready for one.

They called me unprofessional when I walked away. Threatened to blacklist me.

That was three years ago.

I sleep fine.

Would your recruiter tell you no if you needed to hear it?

I Work with Senior Leaders to Build Teams that Shape the Future | Executive Search | C-Suite | 2x Top Voice

Most leaders misdiagnose their team problems.

They see the same symptoms—low energy, missed deadlines, tension in meetings—and reach for the same fix: motivation.

200+ placements taught me something different.

A stressed team and a checked-out team look almost identical. But they need completely opposite interventions.

𝗦𝗶𝗴𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝗗𝘆𝘀𝗿𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗧𝗲𝗮𝗺:

• Small issues trigger big reactions
• People seem on edge, scanning for threats
• Exhaustion that doesn't improve with time off
• They care deeply but can't perform

These people are in survival mode. Their nervous systems are overwhelmed.

𝗦𝗶𝗴𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗧𝗲𝗮𝗺:

• Flat reactions to good news or bad news
• Minimal effort—just enough to not get fired
• Silence that feels like surrender
• They've stopped caring altogether

These people have emotionally left. Something broke the connection.

Here's why this matters when I evaluate leadership environments:

You can't motivate a dysregulated team. Pep talks and incentives don't work when people are overwhelmed. They need safety first.

You can't regulate a disengaged team. Breathing exercises won't help people who've already checked out. They need honest conversations about what's broken.

Before I place any executive, I look for this:

Does leadership understand the difference between a team that's drowning and a team that's already gone?

The executives who fail often walk into dysregulated environments and push harder. Or they walk into disengaged cultures and try to inspire their way out.

Same symptoms. Wrong diagnosis. Predictable failure.

The executives who last? They read the room before they try to change it.

What's the first thing you look for when assessing a team's health?

I Work with Senior Leaders to Build Teams that Shape the Future | Executive Search | C-Suite | Top Voice 2024 - 2025

Why I Tell Candidates to Negotiate AGAINST Their Own Salary

Most recruiters coach executives to ask for more.

I ask them to argue for less.

Not as a trick. As a test.

200+ placements taught me this pattern:

The executives who can articulate why they might be overpriced are the ones worth every dollar.

Here's what I tell candidates in final rounds:

"Give me three reasons a company shouldn't pay you what you're asking."

The weak candidates freeze. Deflect. Get defensive.

The exceptional ones? They go deep.

"My industry experience is strong, but I've never led a team this size."
"I'm asking for equity I haven't earned yet."
"My last company's brand opened doors—I need to prove I can do it without that."

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗥𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘀:

• Self-awareness that can't be faked
• Intellectual honesty under pressure
• The ability to see their own blind spots

The executives who can argue against themselves are the ones who won't oversell and underdeliver.

They know what they're worth. And they know what they still need to prove.

I've watched candidates talk themselves into higher offers by being honest about their gaps. Boards respect it. CEOs remember it.

The ones who can't find a single reason they might be overpriced?

They're usually the first to underperform.

Confidence is knowing your value.
Self-awareness is knowing your limits.

The best executives I've placed have both.

Is there a question you ask that reveals more than a resume ever could?

Your LinkedIn headline doesn't matter as much as you think.

Controversial? Maybe. But after 200+ placements, here's the truth:

I spend about 2 seconds on your headline. Then I scroll straight to your experience section.

I've seen candidates with perfectly optimized headlines—all the right keywords, clever formulas, impressive-sounding buzzwords.

Then I look at their actual work. Nothing there.

I've also seen candidates with headlines that just say "CFO" or "VP Operations." No formula. No flair.

But their experience section tells a story. Clear results. Specific impact. A thread I can follow.

Guess which one I call?

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜 𝗔𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲:

• Does your experience section show progression or just job hopping?
• Can I understand what you actually did, or is it buried in jargon?
• Do your results have numbers, or just vague claims?

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜 𝗦𝗰𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗹 𝗣𝗮𝘀𝘁:

• Headlines stuffed with buzzwords that mean nothing
• "Thought Leader | Visionary | Change Agent"
• Anything that sounds like marketing copy instead of a person

Here's the uncomfortable truth:

A great headline on an empty profile is like a beautiful cover on a blank book.

And a boring headline on a strong profile? I'll still pick up the phone.

Your headline is the wrapper. Your experience is the product.

Stop optimizing the wrapper. Start building something worth unwrapping.

What's the first thing you actually look at when you review someone's profile?

I Work with Senior Leaders to Build Teams that Shape the Future | Executive Search | C-Suite | Top Voice 2024

Apple Just Created a Head of Executive Retention (And Every Fortune 500 Should Follow)

Most companies treat executive retention like an afterthought.

"We'll worry about keeping them once they're here."

Then their best leaders walk out the door to competitors. And suddenly everyone's scrambling.

Apple just did something different. They created a dedicated role focused entirely on keeping their top executives.

Not recruiting them. Keeping them.

After 200+ placements, I've watched this pattern destroy companies:

They spend $500K finding the perfect CFO.
They spend $0 figuring out how to keep her.
Then they spend $750K finding her replacement 18 months later.

The math never works.

𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀:

The war for executive talent isn't about hiring anymore. It's about holding.

Every Fortune 500 company has recruiters hunting your best people. LinkedIn messages. Competitor calls. PE firms dangling equity.

Your executives aren't wondering if they have options. They're wondering if you're worth staying for.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗠𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗚𝗲𝘁 𝗪𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴:

• They assume compensation is enough
• They ignore the small frustrations that compound
• They wait until the resignation letter to ask what went wrong
• They treat retention as HR's problem instead of a strategic priority

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀:

The cost of losing a great executive isn't the replacement search.

It's watching them build your competitor's empire with your blueprints.

I've placed the same executive three times because their previous bosses didn't understand this. They all called me afterward asking for "another Mike."

They had Mike. They lost Mike. And they still didn't get it.

Creating a Head of Executive Retention sends a message: We're not just investing in finding you. We're investing in keeping you.

That's the difference between companies that build dynasties and companies that build revolving doors.

How is your company thinking about executive retention?

Stop chasing “talent” as if it’s a fixed trait.

Most companies believe talent is something you’re born with. Either you have it, or you don’t.

That’s a myth. Talent isn’t fixed. It’s potential waiting for the right environment.

I’ve seen “average” candidates become legends. I’ve watched “top talent” burn out fast.

The difference? Leadership.

Great leaders don’t just spot talent. They build conditions for it to thrive.

They challenge before people are ready. They see potential others overlook. They push past perceived limits.

The best hires I’ve made weren’t the most credentialed. They were the ones someone believed in.

Talent is everywhere. What’s rare is the environment that unlocks it.

Are you hiring what they’ve done? Or what they could become?

No alternative text description for this image

Most hiring fails for one reason nobody wants to admit.

Companies hire for skills. They should hire for mindset.

200+ placements taught me this pattern:

The candidate with the perfect resume flames out in 8 months. The one with "potential" becomes a company legend.

Skills can be taught. Mindset can't.

I've watched CFOs with flawless credentials crumble under pressure. And I've seen "underqualified" operators build teams that transformed entire divisions.

The difference was never what they knew. It was how they thought.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜 𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗻𝗼𝘄:

• Do they take ownership when things break?
• Do they learn from feedback or defend against it?
• Do they lift others up or climb over them?

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜'𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗱 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁:

• The "right" certifications
• The prestigious company names
• The polished interview answers

Here's the uncomfortable truth:

You can teach someone your systems. Your processes. Your industry.

You cannot teach someone to care. To persist. To adapt when the playbook stops working.

The executives who last 10 years don't have better skills than the ones who last 18 months.

They have better mindsets.

Your next hire's resume tells you where they've been.

Their mindset tells you where they'll take you.

Which one are you screening for?

6 Principles That Separate Great Hires from Expensive Mistakes

If you're questioning your role at year 4, you're not impatient. You're right on schedule.

Here's what nobody tells executives:

In my experience, average Fortune 500 C-suite tenure often hovers around 5 years. CEO tenure? About 7-8 years.

200+ placements taught me this pattern:

The executives who stay too long aren't loyal. They're on autopilot.

The ones who start asking hard questions at year 3 or 4? They're the ones who end up in their best roles.

I placed a CFO two years ago who almost didn't take my call. She'd been in her role for five years. Good company. Solid performance. But something felt off.

She kept saying, "I should be grateful. It's a great job."

I asked her one question: "When's the last time you were excited about a Monday?"

Silence.

Six months later, she was leading finance at a company twice the size, building something from scratch. She told me recently it was the best decision she almost didn't make.

The signs were all there. She'd just convinced herself to ignore them.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜 𝗧𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗘𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗪𝗵𝗼 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝗤𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴:

• Give yourself permission to evaluate fit (not just performance)
• Revisit the impact you want to have in the next 5–10 years
• Start strengthening your network now, not when you need it

The real risk isn't exploring your next move too early. It's waiting until external forces push you out.

Executive careers are a series of strategic moves. The best leaders know when to make their next one.

When did you know it was time to write your next chapter?

If Your LinkedIn Says "Executive Recruiter" in 2026, You're Leaving Placements on the Table

A candidate asked me something last week that stuck:

"Why should I work with you instead of the 50 other recruiters in my inbox?"

Fair question. I had an answer. Most recruiters don't.

Here's what 200+ placements taught me about positioning:

The generic title is killing your pipeline.

"Executive Recruiter" tells candidates nothing. It tells clients even less. You're competing with thousands of people who have the exact same two words on their profile.

Meanwhile, the recruiters winning the best mandates?

They don't call themselves recruiters at all.

They're "FinTech CFO Specialist." "Private Equity Operating Partner Talent." "Healthcare C-Suite Search."

The shift isn't about being clever. It's about being findable.

When a PE firm needs a portfolio company CEO, they're not searching "executive recruiter." They're searching for someone who understands their world.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜'𝘃𝗲 𝗦𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸:

• Industry-specific positioning attracts inbound
• Niche expertise commands higher fees
• Candidates trust specialists over generalists
• Clients stop comparing you to commodity recruiters

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜'𝘃𝗲 𝗦𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗙𝗮𝗶𝗹:

• "Full-service" positioning that means nothing
• Trying to be everything to everyone
• Competing on speed instead of insight
• Hiding behind a corporate brand instead of building your own

The recruiters who'll thrive in 2026 won't be the ones with the biggest databases.

They'll be the ones clients and candidates think of first when a specific need arises.

Your title isn't just a label. It's your first pitch.

Make it count.

What does your LinkedIn headline actually say about your expertise? Recruiter or not?

Most companies call me when they're desperate.

CFO just quit. No succession plan. Board meeting in 30 days.

Then they ask: "How fast can you find someone?"

Wrong question.

The right question is: "Why didn't we prepare for this six months ago?"

Here's what reactive hiring actually costs:

• 6-9 months average search timeline under pressure
• $2M+ in lost productivity per vacant C-suite role
• Remaining executives burning out covering gaps
• Strategic initiatives stalled or abandoned
• Competitors poaching your best people during chaos

I've seen it destroy companies.

One client waited until their COO announced retirement. Two weeks notice.

No pipeline. No internal candidates ready. No transition plan.

They promoted someone unprepared. He lasted four months.

Total cost: $3.7M in severance, recruiting fees, and operational disruption.

Compare that to my clients who build partnerships before crisis hits:

We map their leadership bench quarterly.
Identify succession gaps before they're urgent.
Build relationships with potential candidates over time.
Coach internal talent for future roles.

When someone leaves? We're ready in weeks, not months.

One CEO told me: "Craig, having you embedded in our strategy saved us when our CFO got recruited away. We had her replacement starting within 45 days."

The companies crushing it aren't reacting to turnover.

They're anticipating it.

Because in executive search, preparation isn't expensive.

Desperation is.

When's the last time you stress-tested your succession plan?

If you're questioning your role at year 4, you're not impatient. You're right on schedule.

Here's what nobody tells executives:

In my experience, average Fortune 500 C-suite tenure often hovers around 5 years. CEO tenure? About 7-8 years.

200+ placements taught me this pattern:

The executives who stay too long aren't loyal. They're on autopilot.

The ones who start asking hard questions at year 3 or 4? They're the ones who end up in their best roles.

I've watched executives ignore the internal signals for years. The role changed. The organization shifted. Their goals evolved. But they kept showing up to the same job.

By the time they finally moved, they'd lost momentum. Lost leverage. Lost options.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜 𝗧𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗘𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗪𝗵𝗼 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝗤𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴:

• Give yourself permission to evaluate fit (not just performance)
• Revisit the impact you want to have in the next 5–10 years
• Start strengthening your network now, not when you need it

The real risk isn't exploring your next move too early. It's waiting until external forces push you out.

Executive careers are a series of strategic moves. The best leaders know when to make their next one.

What's driving your questions – a problem, or a readiness for growth?

I just placed a VP of Technology who never finished college.

She beat out five Ivy League candidates.

Here's why the board chose her:

She taught herself AI, rebuilt her company's entire tech stack, and led a digital transformation that doubled revenue in 18 months.

The others had perfect resumes.

She had proven learning velocity.

This is the shift I'm seeing after 200+ placements:

Skills-based hiring is replacing credential worship.

Boards don't ask "Where did they go to school?" anymore.

They ask "How fast can they learn what we need next?"

The data backs this up:

Skills assessments reduce mis-hires by 88%.
They predict job success better than any CV.

What companies prioritize now:

• Learning agility over tenure
• Digital literacy over job titles
• AI proficiency over degrees
• Pivot speed over pedigree

Our 96% retention rate comes from one philosophy:

Hire for mindset and adaptability.
Train for skills.

The executives thriving today don't have the longest credentials.

They have the sharpest learning curves and measurable impact.

That VP of Technology?

Still crushing it two years later.

Outperforming every "safer" candidate on paper.

Are you still hiring resumes or hiring potential?

The best interview question I've ever asked isn't on any list.

After 200+ placements, I've sat through thousands of interviews. Watched hiring managers ask the same tired questions. Watched candidates deliver the same rehearsed answers.

Everyone's prepared for "Tell me about yourself." Everyone's got a weakness that's secretly a strength.

So I stopped asking what everyone else asks.

Now I ask this:

"Tell me about a time you were wrong about something important, and what it cost you."

Silence. Every time.

Because this question does something the others can't. It forces honesty.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜'𝗺 𝗟𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗙𝗼𝗿:

• Do they own the mistake or blame circumstances?
• Can they quantify the impact or do they minimize it?
• Did they actually learn something or just survive it?

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜'𝘃𝗲 𝗦𝗲𝗲𝗻:

• Candidates who can't answer have never been accountable for anything meaningful
• Candidates who blame others will do the same in your company
• Candidates who get specific and own it? Those are your people

The resume tells you what someone did. The interview tells you who they are.

But only if you ask questions they can't prepare for.

Your best hires won't be the ones with the perfect answers. They'll be the ones who can sit in discomfort and tell you the truth anyway.

What's the one interview question that's revealed the most about a candidate for you?

Most executives ask the wrong question about their career.

"How long can I keep this job?"

That's survival thinking. Not strategy.

Here's what 200+ placements taught me:

The moment you step into a C-suite role, you're on a 3-7 year runway. That's not pessimism. That's the data. Average C-suite tenure hovers around 5 years. CEOs get about 7-8.

The best executives I've placed don't think about how long they can stay. They think about what this chapter will be known for.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗤𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗔𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗠𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿:

• What do I want this chapter to be known for in 3-5 years?
• What needs to be true for me to stay energized here?
• At what point will it be time to design the next move?

High-performing executives treat their career like a portfolio. Regularly reviewed. Intentionally rebalanced. Aligned with where they can create the most value next.

I've watched executives cling to roles that stopped fitting years ago. They weren't loyal. They were comfortable. And comfort has a cost.

The executives who build remarkable careers don't wait for a crisis to reassess. They build reflection into the rhythm of how they lead.

If your current role no longer matches the leader you've become, that's not a problem.

It's your signal.

How often do you step back and evaluate whether your role still fits?

96% of my placements are still there after 12 months.

94% after 24 months.

Here's what most recruiters won't tell you:

Skills don't predict success. Culture fit does.

I've seen brilliant executives flame out in 6 months.
Not because they couldn't do the job.
Because nobody assessed if they should.

The placements that fail? Same pattern every time:

Recruiter focuses on resume.
Company focuses on credentials.
Everyone ignores the culture gap.

Then acts shocked when the executive quits or gets pushed out.

Here's what actually drives 96% retention:

Before placement:
• Deep culture assessment (not just "values" on a website)
• Leadership style alignment with board expectations
• Strategic vision compatibility with company trajectory

During transition (first 90 days):
• Executive coaching through political landmines
• Stakeholder mapping and relationship building
• Quick wins identified and executed

Most placements fail in the first 90 days.
Not because executives can't perform.
Because they're navigating blind.

The difference between 96% retention and industry average?

I don't just match skills to job descriptions.

I match leadership DNA to organizational reality.

Are you in the right culture for your leadership style?

I've placed 200+ executives.

96% are still there after 12 months.

Here's what separates the ones who thrive from the ones who don't:

It's not credentials.
It's not pedigree.
It's not even experience.

The last five years in executive search taught me retention comes down to three things:

1. Strategic Alignment

The executive's vision must match where the company is actually going.

Not where they say they're going in the job description. Where they're really going.

I've seen brilliant CFOs fail because they were hired to transform, but the board wanted stability. And vice versa.

Misalignment kills placements faster than anything else.

2. Cultural Fit

Skills get you hired. Culture keeps you employed.

An executive can have every qualification on paper and still be gone in six months if they don't fit how the company operates.

I don't mean they need to be best friends with everyone. I mean their leadership style needs to work within the existing culture or have the mandate to change it.

3. Leadership Agility

The ability to adapt when things don't go as planned.

Because they never do.

The executives who last are the ones who can pivot, read the room, and adjust their approach without losing sight of the goal.

They don't need perfect conditions. They create them.

Here's what I've learned:

You can't fake these three things in an interview.

But you can assess for them if you know what to look for.

That's why our placements stick. We don't just match resumes to job descriptions.

We match people to reality.

What do you think matters most for executive retention?

Change Leadership, General Manager PFA @ Batgroup & Member of the Board @ Putzfrauenagentur

Leadership isn’t about volume.
It’s about clarity, confidence and direction when the pressure is on.

I partner with HR leaders, GMs and Executive Teams across MENA & Asia to strengthen leadership capability from the ground up. My work sits where strategy, people and day-to-day execution meet in service-driven organisations.

Most performance issues in hospitality, retail and education aren’t about effort.
They come from three gaps:

❌ Leaders promoted before they’re ready to lead
❌ Executive Teams pulling in different directions
❌ No clear pipeline or succession to stabilise performance

So my work covers both sides of the leadership equation:

Strategy & alignment for senior teams
Facilitated Strategy Days that help GMs and Executive Teams:
✅ Agree a small set of must-win priorities
✅ Translate those into a 90-day execution plan
✅ Build the clarity and focus teams need to perform
✅ Name the leadership behaviours that sustain results

Leadership development for emerging & mid-level managers
Practical, human-centred programmes that build the skills to lead through others, communicate with clarity and coach across cultures.

Coaching & capability building
1:1 and group coaching, Train-the-Trainer, and tailored L&D that strengthen the pipeline and reduce turnover.

Across 25+ years with Apple Retail, Swissôtel, St. Regis and service organisations in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, one truth holds: engagement and commercial performance rise when leaders at every level know where they’re going and how to bring their people with them.

If you’re building your leadership pipeline or want stronger alignment at the top, I’m happy to explore how we can work together.

📞 Book a call: https://cal.com/jeffross

Jeff Ross

I’ve been quiet on LinkedIn for a few weeks.
Intentionally.

The end of 2025, especially early Q4, was demanding. Not just professionally, but mentally and emotionally too. So I chose to step back, spend time with family, and create some much-needed white space.

Here’s the thing we don’t talk about enough in leadership:

Growth doesn’t only happen in motion.
Sometimes it happens in pause.

Over the break, I did what I often encourage leaders to do, though many struggle to make time for:
• Reflect honestly on what worked (and what didn’t)
• Revisit priorities instead of blindly setting new goals
• Notice patterns in my own behaviour under pressure
• Ask better questions, rather than rushing to better answers

Self-awareness isn’t built in the middle of constant execution.
It’s built in moments of distance.

The leaders I see grow the most aren’t the ones who push hardest every quarter.
They’re the ones who regularly step back, recalibrate, and return with more clarity than noise.

As we step into 2026, my focus is simple:
Fewer reactions.
Clearer priorities.
More intentional leadership, starting with myself.

If you haven’t created space to reflect yet, consider this your reminder:
White space isn’t time lost.
It’s leadership work.

Here’s to a more conscious, grounded, and human year ahead.

Helping service brands align strategy, strengthen pipelines and deliver consistent performance | Strategy Days, L&D and coaching | MENA and Asia

People are not “human capital”.
And they are not “assets” either.

I keep seeing employees described this way in leadership, L&D, and wellbeing content.

I understand the origin of the term.
Historically, human capital described skills and capabilities built through investment, not the people themselves.

But the distinction has blurred.

Here is the line I think we need to redraw.

❌ People are not capital
❌ People are not assets

They are human beings who choose, every day, how much energy and judgement they bring to work.

Human capital is what grows through investment
Skills. Confidence. Capability. Leadership depth.

That growth comes from:
✅ training done properly, not tick-box
✅ coaching that changes behaviour
✅ managers who develop people, not just measure them
✅ time and safety to learn, practise, and think

That is where human capital lives.

Language shapes decisions.
Decisions shape culture.

If we want more human leadership, we should start by speaking like humans, not balance sheets.

Calling people “human capital” is already the problem.

If people are capital, then what are they?

Owned?
Optimised?
Written off when returns dip?

No serious leader believes this.
Yet the language sticks.

Here is a cleaner distinction.

People are not human capital.
People are not assets.

Human capital is the outcome of investment, not the object of it.

You build it when you:
✅ develop managers instead of promoting the best technician
✅ coach leaders instead of just reviewing them
✅ invest in learning instead of squeezing efficiency
✅ play the long game, not just the quarter

Strong organisations do not extract value from people.

They create conditions where capability compounds.

If your culture talks about people like inventory,
do not be surprised when engagement feels transactional.

Words are never “just semantics”.
They are shortcuts to how decisions get justified.

In fast growing organisations across the UAE, managers are often promoted quickly to keep pace with expansion.

What usually does not scale at the same speed is leadership capability.

New managers are suddenly expected to lead multicultural teams, absorb pressure from both sides, and deliver consistency under operational intensity.

With little preparation.

When that happens, managers compensate.

➡️ They over control.
➡️ They escalate everything.
➡️ They work longer hours instead of building capability.

❌ This is not a motivation issue.
❌ It is not a generational issue.
✅ It is a pipeline design issue.

Growth without leadership infrastructure creates silent pressure in the middle.
And silent pressure always leaks somewhere.

If you want scale without burnout, development cannot be assumed.
It has to be designed.

In the UAE and GCC, managers are expected to be decisive, inclusive, and steady, all at once.

When we don’t develop them for that reality,
pressure doesn’t disappear.

It concentrates.

Promoted for doing the job.
Stuck because you are still doing it.

The peer to manager transition is not a mindset problem.
It is a capacity design problem.

If nothing changes in how time, decisions, and responsibility are allocated, leadership never starts.

What I have seen work repeatedly is simple and structured:

✅ 30 percent doing the old tasks to stabilise
✅ 30 percent pairing and teaching to hand over
✅ 40 percent coaching, prioritising, removing blockers

For the first 60 days.

One rule makes or breaks it.
The handover must be scheduled.

If it stays informal, it does not happen.
Urgency will always win.

A promotion does not create leadership.
The moment you stop being the bottleneck does.

Question worth answering this week:
Which task will you stop doing by Friday, and who will learn it instead?

Training the peer-to-manager transition muscle

If a manager is still doing most of the work, you have not promoted a leader.
You have relabelled a high performer.

Leadership starts when decisions move down, accountability stays up, and capability is built deliberately.

Without that shift, organisations stay dependent on individuals instead of systems.

This is why middle management feels stretched in so many businesses.
The role changes, but the expectations do not.

❌ Titles do not create leverage.
✅ Design does.

✅ When leadership transitions are supported early, pressure reduces later.
❌ When they are ignored, problems surface quietly and expensively.

The question is not whether someone earned the promotion.
The question is whether the system changed enough to let them lead.

Coming up on one year since we moved back to the UAE.

So much has changed since we lived here nearly two decades ago, and a lot of that change has been really good.

I’ve seen owners of large companies walk the floor, greet employees by name, ask about their families, and mean it.

And then I’ve seen something else, in the same companies:
Middle managers who abuse power over the people under their care.

Not always loudly.
Sometimes it’s subtle:

❌ public shaming disguised as ‘standards’
❌ threats disguised as ‘performance’
❌ pressure passed down because ‘that’s how we do things here’

Here’s the part leaders don’t want to hear:

Culture doesn’t scale through the founder’s intent.
It scales through the manager’s habits.

And the numbers in MENA should make every owner pause:

Only 14% of employees are engaged, while 24% are actively disengaged.

46% are watching for or actively seeking a new job.

31% experienced anger ‘a lot of the day’ yesterday.

Only 25% are ‘thriving’ in life evaluation.

You can invest millions in brand, strategy, and service standards…

…but if a middle manager creates fear, distrust, and turnover, your business pays for it twice:

in retention + recruiting costs
in inconsistent service + customer experience

Gallup has a brutal line leaders should sit with:

Managers drive most of the variance in team engagement.

So the fix isn’t ‘hire faster’ when people resign.
The fix is slow down and build the capability that prevents the resignations in the first place:

✅ Train new managers before they ‘learn leadership’ by copying the worst examples.
✅ Coach existing managers on how to lead under pressure (without leaking it onto their teams).
✅ Make people metrics visible at leadership level (turnover, internal mobility, manager 360s, team climate).
Reward leaders who build trust, not just those who hit numbers.

Because in this region, trust is everything.

And owners should be able to trust their management teams to execute the vision, for the business and for the people.

Question for leaders in the Gulf:
Where is your culture breaking, in strategy, or in the middle layer where it gets executed?

In fast-growing organisations across the UAE and GCC, leadership gaps rarely show up at the top.
They show up in the middle.

High-performing specialists are promoted quickly to keep pace with growth.
Suddenly they’re expected to:

➡️ lead multicultural teams
➡️ balance global standards with local realities
➡️ deliver consistency under constant operational pressure

Without a leadership pipeline, this becomes improvisation.

That is not a talent issue.
It’s a development design issue.

Organisations that scale sustainably here invest early in:

✅ leadership transitions, not just promotions
✅ manager development as ongoing infrastructure
✅ clarity, coaching, and judgement, not just skills

Middle management doesn’t fail loudly in this region.

It absorbs pressure quietly, until it can’t.

Many first time managers say the same thing, quietly.
“I do not want to get this wrong.”

So they hold on longer than they should.
They delay delegation.
They avoid conversations they know are coming.

Not because they lack confidence.
Because they lack support.

Leading former peers, older colleagues, or more experienced team members carries real emotional weight.

When organisations treat new managers as finished products, people protect themselves.
When they treat them as learners, behaviour changes.

❌ Confidence does not come from the title.
✅ It comes from practising leadership with permission to learn.

If you want managers who act calmly under pressure, give them room to build judgement before you test it.

taplio

The Battle

Craig Leach

Jeff Ross

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreCraig Leach's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreJeff Ross's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Craig Leach

Jeff Ross

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);}Craig Leach's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreJeff Ross's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreCraig Leach's LinkedIn Performance