There are two ways for Insurance Companies, Banks, Private Equity firms, MGAs, and insurtechs to approach complex risk in 2025:

1. Rely on generic solutions, potentially overlooking critical gaps.
2. Partner with specialized expertise that delivers clarity and tailored protection.

Many sit in the first category, often underserved by mega-brokers.

Your institution has unique strengths and ambitions. 

But is your risk management truly aligned? 

Or are you unknowingly exposed due to:

–  Coverage gaps hidden in the fine print?

–  Lack of access to sophisticated global markets?

–  Decisions made without credible peer data or advanced analytics?

–  Impersonal service that doesn’t grasp your specific operational realities?

The bigger problem?

You're leaving strategic advantage on the table and potentially facing significant financial or reputational risk down the line.

The solution?

Transform your risk management from a necessary cost center into a strategic asset through a bespoke, expert-driven partnership.

That’s my focus at LION Specialty.

My approach combines:

– Penetrating technical analysis honed by deep experience (including handling complex Fortune 100 accounts) to uncover what others miss.

– Global market access (London, Bermuda) and perspective, crafting solutions beyond standard domestic offerings.

– Process mastery & advanced analytics delivering clarity and confidence, not complexity.

– Authentic human connection, building partnerships that thrive.

(informed partly by my wellness background as a Pilates instructor… sustainable success requires balance)

–  Are you serious about closing critical coverage gaps?

–  Are you ready for risk management bespoke to your institution's needs?

–  Is it time for a partner who brings both sophisticated expertise and a refreshingly collaborative approach?

Let's connect and explore how we can elevate your strategy together.

Natasha Kiemnec

Today, I turn 38. 

I tell you this not because I want wishes of happy birthday but because each year on my birthday I go through successes,  “experiences”, and reflections of my prior year, so I thought I’d share a few here.

1. My parents being a plane ride away is too far. The older they get the more I realize how precious time is with them. Try to always be as kind and gentle with them as you can. 

2. Often in life we are blinded by our own bias. The thing you want most - fitness, that relationship, that money whatever it is, with some simple observation really isn’t that hard to achieve. Don’t over complicate. 

3. Relationships (with most people) are a balance of understanding. General frustration comes from a lack of feeling seen or understood. Patience, grace and understanding go along way. 

4. Be kind - I often watch people be unkind for no reason. 

5. Tale as old as time but work hard. A lot of struggle can be removed from simply putting your head down, keeping your mouth shut, and getting the work done. 

6. My mom used to always tell me to just start. Whenever I was stressed out and overwhelmed - just start. It’s still applicable now. 

7. To those who help - a partner, a coworker, an employee, a family member - you can’t be appreciative and grateful enough. There truly isn’t an end to being thankful. 

8. Have a passion that isn’t work. 

9. Get outside - take breaks. A 20 minute walk always helps. 

10. Always be learning. 

What reflections have you had on birthdays or during moments of pause?

Natasha I.  Kiemnec, ARM

Managing Partner & Co-founder of LION Specialty | Global Financial Institutions & Private Equity Broker | Classical Certified Pilates Instructor

No alternative text description for this image

If your CEO lies on an insurance application, does your D&O policy still protect you?

If you don't know the answer, you are personally exposed.

Insurance applications require a signature. Usually, the CEO or CFO signs it on behalf of the entire executive team.

But what if they hide a material fact?
What if they know about a pending SEC investigation and don't disclose it?

Under a standard D&O policy, the carrier can rescind (cancel) the entire contract if the application contains a material misrepresentation.

The carrier says: "The CEO lied. The policy is void."

You, the innocent board member or VP, are suddenly facing a lawsuit with zero insurance protection. Your personal assets are on the line because of someone else's fraud.

We manuscript "Full Severability" language into every D&O program.

This clause legally separates every insured person.
It dictates that the knowledge or fraud of one executive cannot be imputed (assigned) to any other executive.

If the CEO lies, the CEO loses their coverage.
But your coverage remains fully intact.

You cannot control the actions of every person in the C-Suite.
You can control the contract that protects you from them.

Check your D&O policy today. Look for the "Severability of the Application" clause.

If it says "Imputed to the CEO and CFO," you have a massive gap.

DM me "SEVERABILITY" and I'll review your language.

The most expensive gap in your insurance program isn't an exclusion.

It is a missing file.

Carriers deny more claims for "lack of substantiation" than for actual coverage disputes.
If you can't prove the loss, you don't get paid.

Most companies scramble to build the file after the crisis hits.
That is too late.
You are trying to find invoices and emails while your building is burning or your network is down.

The LION Process:
We build the documentation protocol before the policy binds.

1. The "Day One" Folder
We establish exactly what the adjuster will ask for.
Payroll records. Vendor contracts. Asset lists.
We keep them staged and ready.

2. The Communication Log
During a claim, every phone call needs a follow-up email.
"As we discussed..."
If it isn't written down, it didn't happen.

3. The Timeline
We map the event minute-by-minute.
"Breach detected at 4:02 PM. Counsel notified at 4:15 PM."
Precision kills ambiguity.

An adjuster's job is to ask questions.
Our job is to have the answers ready before they ask.

Is your claim file ready for an audit today?

DM me "DOCUMENT" and I'll send you our claim substantiation checklist.

The insurance industry was built for buildings that burn.

The economy runs on digital infrastructure that just stops working.

There is a trillion-dollar gap in the global insurance market.
It is called Non-Physical Damage Business Interruption (NDBI).

Most property policies require "direct physical loss or damage" to trigger coverage.
A fire. A flood. A hurricane.

But what happens when a cloud provider goes down?

What happens when a payment gateway fails?
What happens when a DNS attack takes your platform offline?

There is no "physical damage."
The servers are fine. The building is standing.
But your revenue has stopped.

Traditional policies say: "No physical damage? No claim."

You are left absorbing millions in lost revenue while paying premiums for a risk that doesn't match your reality.

We don't rely on "Property" forms for digital risks.
We build Parametric triggers and System Failure coverage that responds to the outage, not the damage.

If the network is down, the policy pays.
It doesn't matter if the server room burned down or if a software update just failed.

The loss is the same. The coverage should be too.

Does your Business Interruption policy require "physical damage" to pay?

If you are a digital business, that clause is a trap.
DM me "NDBI" and I'll review your trigger language.

Your insurance policy doesn't protect you the day it binds.

It protects you the day your team knows how to use it.

Most brokers view the "Bind Date" as the finish line.

The invoice is sent. The commission is earned. The file is closed until next year.

That is exactly when the real risk begins.

A $10M D&O policy is useless if your General Counsel doesn't know the exact trigger for notifying a claim.

A Cyber policy is worthless if your Incident Response team calls the wrong vendor during a ransomware attack.

While we bind, we make sure that the team knows how the policy works. 

We don't hand you a 200-page PDF and say "good luck."

We sit down with your CFO, your GC, and your Risk Manager.

1. The Trigger Map
We map out exactly what constitutes a "Claim" under each policy. (Is a subpoena a claim? Is a regulatory inquiry a claim?)

2. The Call Tree
We build a one-page protocol. If X happens, call Y. We establish the pre-approved vendors and legal counsel so you aren't negotiating rates while your servers are locked.

3. The Exclusions Briefing
We highlight exactly what is not covered, so your team can build operational controls around those specific risks.

Insurance is not a document you file away.
It is an asset you have to know how to deploy.

When was the last time your broker trained your team on how to actually use your coverage?

DM me "PROTOCOL" and I'll send you our activation checklist.

A green light in the server room does not mean your business is recovered.

But your insurance carrier might think it does.

We are seeing a dangerous trend in Cyber claims.
Carriers are cutting off Business Interruption payments the moment the "computer network" is technically restored.

They argue: "Your servers are up. The claim is over."

Your servers are up, but your business is still bleeding.
You are reconciling lost data. You are re-indexing files. You are working through a massive backlog of manual entries. You are waiting for vendors to re-certify your connections.

The "outage" is over, but the financial loss is just beginning.

We audit the definition of "Period of Restoration."

If your policy says the period ends when the "Network is Restored"... you are exposed to the post-breach drag.

We clarify the language to reference "Restoration of Business Operations to the condition that existed immediately before the breach”

This ensures the policy pays until your revenue and throughput return to pre-incident levels—not just when the IT ticket is closed.

Do not let a forensic accountant tell you when your business is back to normal.
Let the contract dictate it.

Check your Cyber policy today. Search for "Period of Restoration."

Does it say "Network" or "Operations"?

The difference is your entire Q3 profit margin.
DM me "RESTORE" and I'll review the definition.

You wouldn't hire a CFO based on who has the cheapest laptop.

So why do you hire a broker based on who has the cheapest quote?

Most companies run their insurance RFP like a commodity purchase.

"Here is our data. Go get quotes. We will pick the lowest premium."

This is a trap.
You are incentivizing your broker to strip coverage to hit a price target.

The LION Process:
When you hire a broker, you are hiring a defense team.

You don't ask a heart surgeon for a discount. You ask for their success rate.

The 3 Questions You Should Ask:

1. "Who is on my team?"
Not the sales guy. The technical broker. The claims advocate. I want to see the resumes of the people protecting my balance sheet.

2. "Show me a manuscript."
Don't tell me you can improve coverage. Send me a redacted policy you wrote. Let me see the actual words you changed.

3. "Walk me through a denial."
Tell me about a claim you fought and won. If you haven't had to fight, you haven't been doing this long enough.

Stop buying insurance.
Start hiring expertise.

Are you running an RFP this year?

DM me "RFP" and I'll send you the Broker Evaluation Scorecard we wish every client used.

Bankruptcy doesn't just freeze your assets.
It can freeze your insurance defense.


A portfolio company filed Chapter 11.

The directors were sued immediately for "breach of fiduciary duty."

They called the insurer to pay for their defense.

The Bankruptcy Trustee stepped in.

"That policy is an asset of the estate. You cannot deplete it to pay for legal fees."

The directors were left paying $800/hour lawyers out of their own pockets while a $5M policy sat frozen in court.

We structure "Priority of Payments" clauses into every D&O program.

This language dictates that in the event of bankruptcy, the insurer must pay the individual directors first.

The estate only gets what is left over.

We also add "Side A" DIC (Difference in Conditions) coverage that sits completely separate from the corporate balance sheet.

You don't need insurance when things are going well.

You need it when the walls are closing in.

If your policy isn't bankruptcy-proof, it’s not finished.

Does your policy have a "Priority of Payments" clause?

DM me "PRIORITY" and I'll show you where to look.

The thing about being a woman 


Is that for every moment someone called you

Emotional 
Indecisive 
Quiet 
Irrational 
Bitchy 

May have actually been moments where you were reacting to something not quite right. 

As times have shifted in the past ~10 years, since reading Lean In by Sheryl Sandberg, and hearing Codie A. Sanchez  talk about your haters actually being your fans, I’ve realized it’s less about us reacting in any of those emotions, it’s being told that we’re wrong to have them. 

When actually those emotions might actually be our super powers. 

When used to accurately judge a situation, treat people with kindness, grace, more humanness - that isn’t emotional - it’s power. 

So to all the women out there
leaning in
guiding with grace
remember those names are actually your power. 

Happy International Women’s Day 💕

PS. Two of my absolute favorite women (my aunt and mom)

Five events since 2017. Combined losses from billions to trillions. Physical damage across all five: zero.

NotPetya. 
The 737 MAX grounding. 
COVID-19 shutdowns. 
The Ever Given. 
CrowdStrike.

We went line by line through the coverage implications this week. The exposure class is Non-Damage Business Interruption, and for financial institutions running digital-first operations on legacy programs, the gap between what can shut you down and what your policy actually covers is measured in trillions.

But the article that stopped me was a Law360 piece on cyber policy restoration periods.
The distinction between “operations-focused” and “network-focused” language in your period of restoration definition is outcome-determinative. 

One version covers you through the full resumption of normal business activity. The other stops the clock the moment someone reboots a server — even partially.

That’s the kind of clause that determines whether your next cyber claim pays for twelve weeks of operational drag or cuts off at week two. 

Silence in insurance is dangerous. Especially in the definitions section.

We covered all of it in this week’s Friday Five, plus a forward look at parametric capacity that could compress payout timelines from months to days.

P.S. link in comments. 

P.S.S. Part 1 of our Wednesday Intelligence miniseries on deepfakes is live. What happens when bad guys deepfake your CEO — and six questions for your next renewal. Link in comments.

Your employee didn't get hacked.
They got tricked.

And your insurance policy treats those two things very differently.

A controller gets an email from the "CEO."
"Please wire $500,000 to this vendor immediately for the acquisition."
The email looks real. The tone is urgent.
The controller wires the money.

You file it under your Crime policy.
The carrier points to the "Voluntary Parting" exclusion.

"Your employee voluntarily sent the money. This wasn't theft. It was a mistake."

Or they point to the "Social Engineering" sub-limit.

"We cover this, but only up to $100,000."
You just lost $400,000.

We don't accept $100k sub-limits for the biggest risk you face.
We manuscript the definition of "Computer Fraud" to include "Social Engineering" and "Impersonation Fraud."

We stack the Crime policy limits with the Cyber policy limits to ensure you have full tower protection, not just a sliver.

If your policy penalizes you for being human, it’s the wrong policy.

Check your Crime policy today. Look for the 

"Social Engineering" endorsement.
Is it $5M or $100k?

DM me "FRAUD" and I'll review your limits.

There is a question plaintiff attorneys will ask after every data breach in 2027.
Most boards haven't even heard the premise yet.

"Did you use AI-powered security scanning tools to check your code?"

If the answer is "No," you might be negligent.

Last week, Anthropic released an AI tool that scanned production codebases and found 500+ vulnerabilities that human experts missed for 20 years.

These weren't minor glitches. They were exploitable flaws hiding in plain sight.

Traditional scanners check for "locked doors" (passwords, encryption).
AI checks for "structural weakness" (broken business logic).

We saw this with MFA.

Three years ago, Multi-Factor Authentication was "nice to have."

Today, if you don't have it, you are uninsurable.

AI code scanning is next.

When a defensive tool becomes widely available and highly effective, failing to use it stops being a "resource decision."

It becomes a "breach of fiduciary duty."

The window between discovery and exploitation is compressing from weeks to hours.
Your defense needs to move at the same speed.

Is your board asking about AI security, or are they waiting for the lawsuit?

We put together a one-page AI Security Standard-of-Care Checklist — 10 questions your board should be asking before your next renewal. 

The carrier application changes already in motion. The specific coverage intersections across cyber, tech E&O, and D&O. 

What the standard of care looks like now, not 12 months from now.

Comment CHECKLIST and I'll send it over.

Two federal courts ruled on AI and privilege the same week.

One said consumer AI destroys confidentiality. The other said AI is a tool, not a person, and work product survives.

Both issued February 10, 2026.

Here's why this matters for carriers and the institutions we serve:

In Heppner (SDNY), a defendant used the free version of Claude to draft 31 defense strategy documents without his lawyer's involvement. Judge Rakoff held that Anthropic's privacy policy, which permits data training and disclosure to regulators, destroyed any expectation of confidentiality. No privilege. No work product protection.

In Warner (E.D. Michigan), a pro se plaintiff used ChatGPT to prepare litigation materials. The court denied the defendant's request to compel those materials, holding that compelling production "would nullify work-product protection in nearly every modern drafting environment."

Same technology. Opposite conclusions. The difference came down to two things: attorney direction and platform terms.

We also dug into a 108-page bad faith report from Freeman Mathis & Gary covering 26 states. We stripped the auto cases and pulled the P&C patterns:

Safe harbors are crystallizing in Indiana and Florida 

Communication failures carry compounding penalties in Pennsylvania 

Coverage drafting precision is being rewarded across multiple jurisdictions

And a federal court allowed bad faith claims to proceed against an insurer using undisclosed AI in claims handling. If your adjusters are confirming algorithmic output rather than conducting independent investigations, the file tells that story.

Silence in insurance is dangerous. 

That applies to AI governance too.

This week's Friday Five Boardroom Brief breaks down all three developments with Monday morning action items.

Comment BRIEF if you're not on our list.

P.S. The Heppner opinion is 12 pages. The Warner order is 14. Both are worth the read if you're advising clients on AI use policies.

The Mega-Broker staffing gap is structural, not accidental.


If your premium falls below their threshold, the specialist team doesn't show up.

We recently took over a D&O account for a mid-market financial institution.

They had been operating under an extended reporting period. The directors didn't even have current limits.

When a claim hit, every weakness in their broker's process was exposed: no communication runway, and no renewal strategy worth the name.

We didn't do anything complicated.
We just ran the process that should be standard.

We put a senior specialist team on the account.
We started the renewal 150 days early.

We got the client directly in front of the carriers.

We ran a disciplined marketing process with enough time to maneuver.

Reduced premium. Refreshed limits. Current coverage for the board of directors.

The mega-broker they fired had the capability to do everything we did.

They have specialist teams. They have carrier relationships.

They just didn't deploy any of it on this account because the economics didn't justify it.

Below a certain revenue threshold, you get the regional office. You get the generalist. You get the 60-day compressed timeline.

When everything runs smoothly, you might never notice the difference.

But claims don't ask if the A-team is assigned to your account.

Regulatory inquiries don't care if your renewal started 150 days out or 60.

How do we know?
We lived it for two decades. We worked inside those machines.

The moment complexity arrives, the gap between "process" and "improvisation" becomes very expensive.

Who is actually doing the work on your account?
Not the name on the proposal. The team doing the daily work.

If the answer gives you pause, that's the conversation worth having before the next claim forces it.

If you’re interested in the story, check out our Wednesday intelligence which went out today. Comment “WEDNESDAY” and I’ll add you to our distribution.

Check our the podcast version of our Wednesday intelligence!

There are 48 approved Lloyd's war exclusion wordings for cyber.

Forty-eight.

And attribution of a state-sponsored cyber attack takes years. Sometimes longer than the policy period.

I spent the week going line by line through the Trellix threat intelligence assessment that dropped March 5. 

Ten active Iranian cyber groups. 

MuddyWater targeting a financial institution in Egypt. 

CyberAv3ngers building custom malware for operational technology in the US. Rust-based payloads. AI-assisted development. 

The technical evolution is real.

But what matters to our clients isn't the malware taxonomy. It's the coverage question.

If a regional bank or community hospital on your book gets hit with ransomware traced to an IRGC-linked group, you're looking at a war exclusion dispute before the forensic report is final. 

The wording matters. 

The classification matters. 

The difference between "hostile cyber activity" and "cyber war" in your manuscript language could determine whether a claim pays or fights.

That's before you connect it to the reinsurance repricing. Seven of twelve P&I clubs cancelled war-risk cover. 

Maritime premiums surged over 1,000%. 

And Morningstar DBRS warned they'll raise attachment points on treaties that have nothing to do with the Gulf.

Your producers should be walking into client meetings this week with three questions:

What does your cyber war exclusion actually say? 

When was the last time anyone reviewed it against the LMA classifications? 

Does your incident response plan contemplate a state-sponsored attack during active military conflict?

We break down all three channels in this week's Friday Five Boardroom Briefing. 

Comment NEWSLETTER for the link.

The worst time to discover your insurance carrier's claims philosophy is during a claim.


A $10M limit from Carrier A looks exactly the same as a $10M limit from Carrier B on a spreadsheet.

The premium might even be 5% cheaper.

But that spreadsheet hides the reality of the transaction.

It doesn't show you their litigation history. It doesn't show you their default response to a complex loss.

We vet the claims department before we look at the premium.

1. The Philosophy Audit
We track how carriers behave under pressure. We know which markets actively look for ways to pay, and which ones immediately draft "Reservation of Rights" letters to protect themselves.

2. The Authority Check
We identify who actually holds the pen. If your underwriter has to ask a committee in another time zone for permission to settle, your recovery will stall. We place business with direct decision-makers.

3. The Syndicate Alignment
When we build a tower in London, we don't stack random capacity. We align markets that have a proven history of following the lead carrier without friction.

Cheap capacity is easy to find.
Reliable capital requires a rigorous selection process.

Do you know the claims’ reputation of the carriers on your current tower?

DM me "CAPITAL" and I'll tell you how they actually perform under pressure.

Follow for daily Insights to live a longer, healthier life

Over the past decade, I’ve scaled revenue and client success at three SaaS companies from $3M to $50M+ ARR, delivering 110%+ net revenue retention and top 10% NPS scores (65+).

Today, we help recruiting agency owners & Principals ($5M–$20M billings, 5–20 recruiters) land new clients from LinkedIn by becoming a trusted authority in their market. 

Our clients are busy business owners. They don’t want to be “content creators.” 

They want done-for-you exec content that lands new clients. That’s what we do.

In the past 12 months, we’ve generated $5M+ in client billings from LinkedIn by positioning recruiting agency owners as the go-to authorities in their markets.

Our methodology:
→ Revenue Growth Engine - a 3-step system perfected with 40+ founders & recruiting agencies
→ Content strategy that generates demand for contingent and retained searches (not just likes)
→ Strategic outreach to initiate conversations with your ideal clients
→ All requiring just 1.5 hours per week from busy Principals and owners

Our results:
→ 40+ owners and Principals served
→ $5M+ in client billings generated from inbound leads via LinkedIn
→ 8+ qualified inquiries per month within 90 days (average client result)
→ Doubling client pipelines in under 6 months
→ Clients include 7 and 8-figure recruiting agencies commanding $75K+ fees and securing multi-search mandates

And we're just getting started!

We help recruiting business owners who are:
→ Tired of building trust from scratch and ready for clients who arrive pre-sold
→ Reliant on a referral pipeline that has plateaued and feels unpredictable
→ Ready to turn decades of expertise into an inbound client pipeline

Ready to turn LinkedIn into your #1 growth channel?
→ Book a 25-minute strategy call: 

https://calendly.com/rohan-karunakaran-mbww/1-1-strategy-call

Rohan Karunakaran

I sat down with LinkedIn’s first Chief HR Officer, Steve Cadigan, to share a few early lessons from his time at LinkedIn - well before it became the iconic company we know today.

Two moments from the early days stuck with me:

1// The “Obama validation” moment

When President Obama visited LinkedIn’s campus in 2011, signups jumped from 1 new member/second → 2 new members/second the very next day.

2// The “IPO perception shift” moment

On the day LinkedIn went public, membership doubled again - not because of a new product feature… but because of market validation. 

Big takeaway for founders/operators: 

Trust compounds. And visibility and perception can accelerate adoption as much as  product. In both earlier and mature stages of growth. 

Follow for the full episode dropping Friday !

CEO at Frontier | Podcast host at Founder-Led 🎙️

Most people think LinkedIn is a content platform.

It’s not.

It’s a trust layer built on top of a professional graph.

You’re told to “post content,” “build a personal brand,” “grow your network.”

But what LinkedIn actually does is simpler:

It’s where buyers decide who to call - before you know they’re looking.

Picture this:

→ A CEO has a critical hire
→ They ask their network for search firm recommendations
→ Three names come back
 → Before picking up the phone, they open LinkedIn
 → They scroll each profile and last 10 posts

One has nothing. Maybe a reshare from 2023.
The next has generic “we’re hiring” updates.

The third has sharp, specific insights about executive hiring in their exact vertical.

Who do you think gets the first call?

Not because they’re better. 

But because they compressed five trust-building conversations into a 90-second scroll.

That’s what this platform is: a credibility compressor.

It shrinks the time it takes for someone to decide:
 “They’re real.”
 “They’re sharp.”
 “They understand this market.”

Your posts aren’t the product. Reduced uncertainty is the product.

That's what people buy. 

The firms we work with aren’t trying to become creators. They’re bringing their offline reputation online. 

The result isn’t followers. It’s people arriving warm and somewhat pre-sold. It’s skipping the "five-call trust tour".

Most content on LinkedIn is noise. Which is exactly why specific, experience-based signal cuts through.

The bar is on the floor, especially for search firms. Now is the time to own your market.

If you're a search firm owner looking to grow your warm network through trust-building content, shoot me a DM. Happy to share what we're seeing work right now.

H/T ✍🏻 Chengeer Lee for inspiring this post 🙌

A RevOps founder sent me HubSpot’s 2025 State of Sales Report.

Two takeaways stood out:

1. AI has become operational, not experimental (obvious)
2. Social selling is now a major revenue driver - with the highest response rates, highest-quality leads, and strongest sales effectiveness vs. all other channels. 

A few stats that stood out:
• 35% said social is where they get their highest-quality leads
• 42% of sellers said social has the highest response rate for cold outreach
• 45% rated social as the most effective channel to drive sales

To be clear, in the context of knowledge work and B2B selling, “social selling” mostly means LinkedIn.

• It's where buyers are doing diligence before / during the sales cycle, through renewal. 
• It means your presence, POV and proof now shape pipeline more than most firms realize.

In HubSpot’s words:
“In 2026, prospecting should be social-first.” 

(we agree, but we may be biased)

And for more complex sales and industries like manufacturing and aerospace, they specifically point to LinkedIn + email as the most effective combo.

We’re seeing similar trends with our business and clients.

Is LinkedIn doing that work for your firm right now?

PS - Full report in the comments 👇

I asked 30 recruiting firm owners what stops them from posting on LinkedIn. Here's what they said:

"I don't have time " -14 recruiters
"I don't know what to write about" - 10 recruiters
"I'm afraid of sounding cringe" - 6 recruiters

All three are valid and totally solvable.

(1) "I don't have time"

You’re running 6 - 8 active searches. Managing clients. Sourcing. Putting out fires.

But part of the reason you’re this busy is because every new prospect needs 4-5 conversations before they decide to work with you. 

Good content accelerates trust. It reduces the amount of "selling" you have to do on every call, taking pressure off you and your team's calendar.

And the ROI on energy is REAL when people show up more bought-in on the first call. Calls just feel more fun!

(2) "I don't know what to write about"

• You convinced a CEO not to make a bad hire last week.
• You explained why retained is better than contingent
• You handled the same candidate objection for the fifth time.

THAT's the content.

You don't have an idea problem.  You have an extraction and packaging problem. 

The insights are already in your call recordings and inbox.

(3) "I'm afraid of sounding cringe"

This one keeps the best recruiters quiet.

You've seen the broetry. The humble brags. The "I'm thrilled to announce" posts. And you want no part of it.

Good. Neither do your prospects.

They want someone who sounds like they've actually placed 200+ executives. That's you. The fear of sounding cringe is actually a sign you have real experience and want to take the same care to package and present it online. 

The ones who pushed through? They’re booking 10+ meetings per month from LinkedIn. 

DM me and I'll show you screenshots :) 

Everyone who posts consistently felt cringe at first. They just decided being of service and growing their business was more important than playing it safe (spoiler: "playing it safe" is actually riskier long-term). 

If you wait until it feels comfortable, you’ll never start.

---

Here’s the truth:

It’s not a time problem.
It’s not an ideas problem.
It’s not an authenticity problem.

It’s a systems problem.

Most recruiting firm owners try LinkedIn casually - no framework, no rhythm, no one helping them distill what they already know.

Then they don't see any traction and it fizzles out. 

I can confirm with data: the firms driving 8+ qualified convos per month aren’t more established or “better at content.”

They spend 1 hour a week talking through what they already know.

A system handles the rest. 

Be honest. How many weeks has it been since your last post?

LinkedIn's first Chief HR Officer, Steve Cadigan, dropped this insight during our conversation and I keep coming back to it:

The companies winning right now aren’t the ones with the most resources or experience. 

They’re the ones who’ve learned to get out of their own way.

Two shifts he’s seeing:

1// Command-and-control is breaking

The most valuable companies are being built by smaller, faster, less hierarchical teams, where decisions happen close to the work, not at the top of the org chart.

2// Tenure is being replaced by 'rate of learning'

The strongest organizations are optimizing for rate of learning -  bringing in people who challenge legacy thinking and make better decisions faster.

AI is the obvious catalyst here. When the cost of intelligence and experimenting drops and the pace of change spikes, the advantage shifts to orgs that can adapt fastest.

Tesla is a clear example. Worth more than Toyota, Ford, GM, and Hyundai combined.

Not because they have more experience. Because investors believe they can out-innovate the incumbents.

Full episode in the comments below 👇

Just reviewed a recruiter's LinkedIn profile.

$150M org. 7,000+ employees. EY Entrepreneur of the Year.

Her content? Mostly podcast promos and company updates.

Great for brand awareness. But ineffective at building deeper trust, familiarity, and consideration with potential clients. 

This is the gap I keep seeing with search firm owners. 

Incredible operators. Hundreds of placements. Decades of pattern recognition.

But their content stays surface-level and could be written by anyone else. 

The stuff that would make a CEO or hiring manager stop scrolling:

- How you assess leadership talent differently  
- Why most retained searches stall at the same point 
- What separates firms that fill in 45 days vs. 120+

That’s the stuff that builds authority between conversations.

Educational content does something brand content can't - it makes a prospect feel understood before you've ever spoken. 

You want to 'get in their head' with how specifically you speak to the issues they're facing and how you'd solve them. 

Especially in exec search, where your average retainer is $100K+, arriving pre-trusted changes the sales cycle.

It's the difference between a 5-call trust tour and a 1-call close.

Most firms are sitting on decades of placement insight that never leaves the founder's brain. 

HUGE miss IMO. 

If you run a search firm and want to turn what you already know into inbound demand — DM me. Happy to share what we’re seeing work.

We're taught to chase achievement.

No one teaches us how to expand consciousness.

I came across this 2x2 and it stuck with me because it maps the relationship between the two - and how they reinforce each other.

And by consciousness, I mean self-awareness - the degree to which we’re awake to our patterns, motivations, and deeper purpose.

→ Playing the game - low agency, low consciousness. Running default scripts.

→ Winning the game - high agency, low consciousness Achievement driven by ego or fear.

→ Escaping the game - high consciousness, low agency. Insightful… but not impactful.

→ Evolving the game - high agency, high consciousness. Aligned and effective.

In my own life, breaking points - a stressful work environment and a relationship ending - forced an upgrade in consciousness

For some it's burnout, financial pressure, or a health scare - the universe giving us a shake toward a more joyful and aligned path. If we choose to listen. 

A disruption that asks: Is this actually aligned?

“Evolving the game” became a useful decision filter for me:

• Work with people I genuinely respect and enjoy
• Choose a lane that feels energizing, not draining
• Work in my 'zone of genius', delegate the rest where possible

Also, the path isn’t linear. For me, business stability came first. Consciousness expanded later.

Only then did I have the courage to step into the unknown and choose more aligned work.

Others may begin highly self-aware - and later build agency through action.

It's also easy to drift between quadrants. Staying in the “Evolving the Game” mindset isn’t automatic - it requires regular practice and commitment. 

Curious - does this framework resonate with you? Where do you see yourself on the map?

The RevOps x AI category hasn't been claimed yet.

No one owns the narrative. And the gap is wide open.

I've spoken with 5 RevOps firm founders in the past 3 weeks. Every one of them has a real POV on how AI is changing GTM operations. 

But none of them are sharing it consistently. 

A few angles that are sitting wide open right now:

Theme 1: AI is an amplifier. It scales good systems - and bad ones. 

Most teams are throwing AI on top of messy workflows and wondering why nothing improves. The co's that are fixing the foundation first, then layered in AI are pulling ahead. If you've seen this play out with a client, that's a post.

Theme 2: What an actual RevOps x AI playbook looks like.

No vague AI talk. A real point of view on how AI changes quote-to-cash, handoffs across sales / marketing / CS, reporting, forecasting, and decision-making.

Most firms are speaking in generalities. The ones that go deep on the mechanics will own the conversation.

Theme 3: RevOps x AI for [Industry].

Most RevOps firms are only talking to B2B SaaS.

Manufacturing is a good example of a highly underserved vertical. Some of the largest manufacturers in the world don't even have a CRM. Billions in revenue. No CRM. The RevOps x AI opportunity there looks nothing like SaaS. 

If you work in a specific vertical and you know how it actually buys and operates, that's content - and probably a category - that nobody has touched yet.

A year from now, every firm will say they’re operationalizing AI.

A much smaller number will be known for a specific methodology, a specific market, and real implementation proof they can point to.

If I ran a RevOps firm, I'd be asking:

Are we building that association now - or waiting until the market gets crowded?

taplio

The Battle

Natasha Kiemnec

Rohan Karunakaran

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreNatasha Kiemnec's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreRohan Karunakaran's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Natasha Kiemnec

Rohan Karunakaran

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);}Natasha Kiemnec's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreRohan Karunakaran's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreNatasha Kiemnec's LinkedIn Performance