At Growth Hub, we build embedded operational capability for financial services firms.

We remove the operational drag that sits around deals and internal workflows, so operators can focus on high value work.

That includes:

Deal Operations
CRM hygiene, pipeline maintenance, targeting, and deal tracking. Owned, predictable, and run properly.

Research & Intelligence
Structured, factual research that supports decisions without interpretation or noise.

Business Operations Support
Internal operational workflows. Admin, registers, HR and TA operations, vendor data, policy tracking.

Everything is designed upfront, documented through SOPs, QA’d, and rolled out on a clear 30 / 60 / 90 day plan. This behaves like an internal function, not an outsourced task list.

What we do not do is deliberate.
No advice. No insight. No lead generation. No ad hoc support.

We run defined workflows end to end, and we do them well.

Build leverage. Reduce operational drag.

Dan Vanrenen

If you have come across Growth Hub through my posts or conversations, this is the clearest way to understand what we actually do:

We work exclusively with financial services firms.

Growth Hub installs embedded operational capabilities that remove operational drag from deal teams and operators, so they can focus on high value work.

We do this through three clearly defined capabilities.

1. Deal Operations
- CRM hygiene
- pipeline maintenance
- targeting and account lists
- deal trackers and coverage workflows

2. Research & Intelligence
- structured, factual company and sector research
- market and competitor mapping
- transaction data and news monitoring
  (always factual, never interpretive)

3. Business Operations Support
- internal operational workflows and registers
- HR, TA, and people operations admin
- policy, compliance, and vendor data management
- onboarding and offboarding workflows
- document control and internal trackers

Most teams start with Deal Operations.
Once execution is clean, they add Research & Intelligence.
When internal admin drag becomes obvious, they add Business Operations Support.

Everything runs on SOPs, QA, and a clear 30 / 60 / 90 day rollout, so this behaves like a real internal capability, not a collection of tasks.

For clarity, what we do not do:
- lead generation or outreach
- insight, analysis, or advice
- ad hoc “help with whatever” work
- providing individuals rather than a capability

If you are in financial services and spending too much time managing operational noise instead of doing the work that actually moves the needle, this is probably relevant.

Founder & CEO of Growth Hub | Embedded operational capability for financial services firms

Why most teams feel busy but not effective:

If everyone is busy, but nothing feels stable,
you don’t have a capacity problem.

You have an ownership problem.

When no one clearly owns:
- CRM hygiene
- deal tracking
- research inputs
- internal admin

Work floats.
Quality drifts.
People redo the same tasks.
And senior operators end up back in the weeds.

This isn’t a performance issue.
It’s an operating model issue.

The difference between help and leverage:

Help feels good in the moment.
Leverage holds up over time.

Help is:
- someone jumping in
- context living in their head
- progress tied to availability

Leverage is:
- defined workflows
- repeatable outputs
- work that runs without supervision

If your progress depends on who’s online, you’re getting help.
Not leverage.

Why most “research support” creates more noise, not clarity:

Most teams don’t have a research problem.
They have a decision bottleneck.

What usually happens:
- research is ad hoc
- context lives in inboxes
- facts are mixed with opinions
- people redraw the same work every time

The issue isn’t depth.
It’s structure.

Good research support is:
- factual
- repeatable
- clearly scoped
- delivered in the same format, every time

Clarity beats cleverness.
Especially under time pressure.

Most teams come to us saying they want better data.

What they usually need is:
- clearer ownership
- fewer judgment calls
- repeatable workflows
- someone whose job it is to keep things moving

Tools do not create that.
Capabilities do.

This is usually where teams start with us.

When we talk about Deal Operations, this is what we mean.

Not strategy.
Not outreach.
Not analysis.

Just clean execution.

1. CRM hygiene that actually stays clean
2. pipelines updated as a habit, not a scramble
3. targeting lists that are usable, not theoretical
4. trackers that reflect reality

Run properly, this removes hours of low value work from deal teams every week.

Most teams feel the impact within the first 30 days.

Why saying no is part of good operations:

Good operators say no more than they say yes.

Not because they’re difficult.
Because they protect quality.

If everything is in scope:
- nothing is owned properly
- standards slip
- trust erodes

Clear boundaries aren’t restrictive.
They’re how you scale without chaos.

A simple test for deal teams:

If you stopped updating your CRM for two weeks:
- would anyone notice?
- would anything break?
- would decisions change?

If the answer is no, the system is not embedded.
It is optional.

Optional systems always lose to urgent work.

The hidden cost of “we’ll fix it later”
Most operational issues don’t come from big mistakes.

They come from small deferrals.

“We’ll clean that up later.”
“We’ll document it once this deal is done.”
“We’ll tighten the process when things slow down.”

They never do.

Deferred ops work doesn’t disappear.
It compounds.

And by the time it becomes visible, it’s no longer a quick fix.

Why scaling execution feels harder than scaling revenue:

Revenue scales in jumps.
Execution scales in layers.

Most firms focus on the first and ignore the second.

New deals come in.
New clients, regions, strategies.
But the underlying workflows stay the same.

Eventually the same processes are doing twice the work, under more pressure, with more edge cases.

That’s when execution starts to creak.

Because what got you this far is now becoming a bottleneck.

Here’s a useful question for any growing firm:

“What work do we keep rediscovering how to do?”

If the answer includes:
- how we prep for deals
- how we track progress
- how we gather information
- how we hand things over

That’s not complexity.
That’s missing structure.

Good operations don’t remove work.
They remove rediscovery.

Most deal teams do not have a CRM problem.

They have an ownership problem.

No one owns:
- hygiene
- consistency
- follow-through
- keeping it current

So the CRM slowly decays.
Pipeline confidence drops.
People stop trusting the data.

And eventually everyone works around it instead.

That is not a tool issue.
It is an operational gap.

Why most ops fixes don’t stick:

A lot of operational “fixes” fail for one simple reason.

They’re treated as projects.

A clean-up.
A one-off redesign.
A burst of attention.

Then everyone goes back to normal work.

Operations don’t fail from neglect.
They fail from ambiguity.

A quick line we draw early with clients.

We do not “help out” with deals.

We install a Deal Operations capability that:
- owns defined workflows
- runs on SOPs
- is QA checked
- has a clear 30 / 60 / 90 day maturity path

That structure is what makes the work reliable.

Flexibility feels helpful.
Structure is what actually scales.

The misunderstanding that kills most ops conversations...

The biggest misunderstanding we see is this:

“We need help with workflows.”

What they usually mean is:
“We want someone flexible who can just pick things up.”

Which sounds reasonable.
But it’s also where quality dies.

Good operations are not flexible.
They are designed.

Clear ownership.
Clear scope.
Clear outputs.
Clear 30/60/90 expectations.

If you can’t explain what should exist after 90 days,
you don’t have a workflow.

You have good intentions.

The quiet test of a healthy ops function

Here’s a simple test:
If someone is away for two weeks,
what breaks?

If the answer is:
“we’d struggle”
“they hold a lot of context”
“we’d need to wait for them”

That’s not a people issue.
That’s a design issue.

Strong operations survive holidays,
promotions,
and exits.

That’s the bar.

Most leadership teams think scale breaks because things get “more complex.”
That’s rarely true.

Scale breaks because decisions get further away from execution.

The moment design, ownership, and reality stop sitting together, drag appears.
Meetings increase.
Exceptions multiply.
People start compensating instead of fixing.

That’s not complexity.
That’s distance.

Good operating models minimise distance.
Bad ones hire around it.

Cosmo Tech | The Decision Twin Platform for Supply Chain, Finance & Asset Leaders at Fortune 500 Scale | Simulate Tomorrow. Decide Today.

I specialize in the messy middle of B2B SaaS scaling—taking companies from erratic growth to a disciplined, high-performance revenue engine.

Most sales teams don’t fail because they lack talent; they fail because of ambiguity.
When forecasts can’t be trusted, pipelines move only through founder heroics, and managers report activity instead of owning outcomes, you don’t need another playbook—you need an operating system.

My operating philosophy: Cadence | Ownership | Process

I install a repeatable flywheel of operational excellence:

Cadence
A rigorous Rhythm of Business—daily, weekly, and monthly operating cadence that surfaces execution risk early, before it becomes a board-level surprise.

Ownership
Managers own outcomes, not just activity. Forecasts are built bottom-up so leadership can commit without caveats.

Process
Qualification and execution are standardized before adding headcount, ensuring hiring is tied to capacity and real revenue impact—not hope.

The proof (Ekahau — SVP, Global Sales, 2019–2024)
	•	Revenue: Scaled $25M → $65M ARR in five years
	•	EBITDA: Increased $7M → $32M (margins ~20% → ~50%)
	•	Team: Built a 130-person global organization while reducing per-employee cost 25%

Selected wins
	•	Healthentic: Doubled ACV ($5M → $10M) and drove 10× pipeline growth through GTM transformation
	•	ControlCase: Delivered 34% YoY growth and 300% expansion revenue growth

Currently

Available for VP of Sales or Fractional GTM leadership with B2B SaaS companies $5M–$30M ARR. I also lead SalesGSS (revenue operating frameworks) and DigitalRegIntel (regulatory intelligence for AI/fintech).

The Senator perspective

Two terms as a Washington State Senator taught me the value of high-stakes negotiation and public accountability. I bring that same discipline to sales: clear ownership and execution when the pressure is real.

“Steve is ‘Instant Offense’ for sales—rare and valuable. World-class at creating strategic, data-driven sales teams.”
— Jeff O’Mara, CEO (Healthentic) / GM (Ekahau)

Steve Litzow

AI didn’t kill sales reps.
It killed excuses.

In 2026, AI isn’t a productivity tool — it’s a truth serum.

It exposes:
• Broken process
• Weak management
• Fake activity dressed up as “effort”

If your sales motion is tight, AI compresses time-to-decision.
If it’s sloppy, AI just produces more noise — faster.

Most $10M–$50M ARR teams are about to learn this the hard way.

This is Week 1 of the SalesGSS 2026 Operating Series.
Eight weeks. Eight uncomfortable truths.

AI didn’t come for your reps.
It came for your excuses.

Comment “2026” if you want the series.

VP of Sales / Fractional VP (B2B SaaS, VC & PE-backed) for $5M–$30M B2B SaaS | Scaled $25M → $65M ARR | SalesGSS

Your closers aren’t the problem.
Your committee is.

Roughly half of qualified B2B deals don’t lose.
They stall.
“No decision.”

At $10M–$50M ARR, the pattern is consistent:
• Strong champion
• Positive calls
• Deal “feels good”

But it’s single-threaded.

One relationship trying to carry internal selling across:
Finance. IT. Security. Procurement. Operations.

The closer is persuasive.
The organization isn’t aligned.

With 10+ stakeholders involved, persuasion no longer scales.

Elite closers in 2026 aren’t smoother.
They’re better at internal selling.

They multi-thread early.
They equip champions.
They sell the decision process.

Quick diagnostic:

Can your reps name five stakeholders—and each one’s priority—in their top deals?

If not, you’re optimized for persuasion when you need consensus.

Week 2 of the SalesGSS 2026 Operating Series.
(Week 1: AI doesn’t fix execution—it exposes it.)

Comment “2026” if you want the series.

If you can’t prove value in the first 60 days, you don’t have a deal.

In 2026, long sales cycles aren’t what kill deals.

Delayed proof does.

Buyers will wait longer to buy —
but they won’t wait longer to know if they made the right decision.

57% of B2B buyers expect positive ROI within 3 months — not at renewal.

If a champion can’t point to a concrete win inside 60 days:

Confidence erodes
Finance steps in
“Commit” turns into “let’s wait and see”

That’s why the strongest teams aren’t closing faster.

They’re proving faster.

They define Day-60 success before the contract is signed.
They scope for proof, not size.
They treat time-to-value as a deal quality metric, not a CS problem.

If value only shows up at renewal, the deal was insured by hope — not evidence.

This is Week 3 of the SalesGSS 2026 Operating Series.
Next week: why slow product cadence is becoming a silent deal-killer.

When supervision exists only in email, it doesn’t exist at all.

This week didn’t bring a sweeping new regulation.
That’s exactly the risk.

Across the U.S. and EU, regulators continued applying existing authority while legislative clarity remains unresolved. That combination — active enforcement discretion + unresolved rules — is where most future compliance failures are born.

Fast-forward 24–36 months and the question won’t be:

“Was the guidance clear?”

It will be:
“What did you know — when did you know it — and how was that knowledge supervised?”

This week alone:

SEC and CFTC signaled regulatory coordination is moving forward without Congress
EU AI Act transparency expectations quietly locked in
FinCEN delayed rules while Treasury intensified enforcement
Enforcement volume dropped — but guidance-based expectations accelerated

None of this required a new rule. All of it creates exposure.

If your supervisory awareness lives in emails, Slack threads, or people’s heads, it won’t survive diligence, exams, or enforcement.

That’s why we published this week’s DigitalRegIntel Supervisory Brief — and why we believe supervisory awareness needs a system of record, not a newsletter.

Because when the question comes,
explanations don’t count. Records do.

This week’s brief formally documents each supervisory signal referenced above.

#RegulatoryCompliance #DigitalAssets #AIGovernance #RegTech #Compliance

This week’s regulatory signal isn’t clarity — it’s formation.

In the U.S., digital asset market structure legislation stalled again. In the EU, regulators are already questioning AI Act transparency practices well ahead of enforcement.

Different jurisdictions. Different tools. Same supervisory pattern.

Expectations are forming before rules finalize — and long before penalties appear.

That’s what shows up later in:
- Board and audit committee questions
- nvestor and acquirer diligence
- Bank and payment-partner reviews

Not “what did the law eventually say?”
But “what did leadership understand and monitor as expectations evolved?”

I publish a short Digital Regulatory Intelligence brief each Tuesday that documents these early supervisory signals — not predictions, not legal conclusions — just what’s forming in real time.

Most regulatory risk doesn’t show up as a rule violation.

It shows up later as a question regulators now ask routinely in enforcement actions:

“When did you become aware of this risk?”

Across new digital regulations and recent enforcement matters, regulators have shifted from checklist compliance to supervisory posture — an expectation of continuous, documented awareness.

Exposure today isn’t just what you did.
It’s what you reasonably knew — and when you knew it.

That’s why this is increasingly a board-level issue, not a compliance exercise.

Curious how others are documenting supervisory awareness before it’s asked for.

The roadmap slide used to be the closer.
In 2026, shipping is.

Buyers don’t evaluate products by vision anymore.
They evaluate them by momentum.

Before they ever talk to your sales team:
• They’ve checked G2 for recent updates
• They’ve Googled what you shipped last quarter
• They’ve asked their network if you’re still actively building

They’re not asking “Where is this going?”
They’re asking “What have you shipped lately?”

Here’s what most teams miss:

Products that can’t show visible momentum during evaluation are assumed incapable of delivering value fast after purchase.

If buyers can’t see progress now, they won’t believe you can produce results in their first 60 days.

The strongest teams in 2026 aren’t winning on features.
They’re winning because buyers can see execution before the first call.

This is Week 4 of the SalesGSS 2026 Operating Series.

Next week: Why waiting for clean data is now officially malpractice.

taplio

The Battle

Dan Vanrenen

Steve Litzow

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreDan Vanrenen's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreSteve Litzow's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Dan Vanrenen

Steve Litzow

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);}Dan Vanrenen's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreSteve Litzow's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreDan Vanrenen's LinkedIn Performance