Growing a B2B SaaS in a cash-efficient way by setting the operational foundations and make sure you have the right people in the right seat • CEO at Q7Leader • Operating Partner at welovefounders •

In 2010, Steve Jobs announced the first iPad, but it was only in 2011 that the camera was added to the iPad.  

This camera triggered my entrepreneurial journey. 

Before that, communication on construction projects would happen via phone, email, and face-to-face meetings.

The iPad created a significant opportunity to disrupt the construction sector. Through an app, a foreman could quickly drop a pin on a drawing, take a picture showing the issue, and send a pdf report that needed no explanation. 

In 2012, I founded co-founded Aproplan. We built an app to help contractors, sub-contractors, and architects communicate better in the field.

We got early traction, quickly reaching €1m in ARR, raising funds from angel investors and reputable VC firms. We grew the business from a handful of people to 80 before merging with a Danish player to form LetsBuild, a 150 people-strong company in 5 different countries. 

I could stop the story here and say that everything was fantastic.

But that would only be one side of the story…

Like every entrepreneurial journey, it was a bumpy ride.

It was very stressful and frustrating at times. 

Early on, we had to do a management buy-out to solve a significant founders’ issue that almost killed the company.

We raised money from a reputable VC firm to grow the business.

This brought significant stress to grow faster, especially when you discover that international expansion is super challenging and so dependent on hiring the right people.

We merged with a company in the Nordics and almost doubled in size over night. And while the merger made a lot of sense on paper, merging two very different cultures made me realise it was all about people. 

Along the way, we raised and burned way too much money, hoping that money would solve all our growth problems.

Then COVID hit, and I burned out.

I had spent 8 years building a company. I was traveling 4 days a week, working weekends, and ignoring my family.

In 2021, I met Reggy and Pascal, founders of Q7Leader and discovered the People Model Canvas to me. I saw how powerful it was and all the challenges it would have helped me solve during my journey at Aproplan and LetsBuild.  

Today, I’m the CEO of Q7Leader and help B2B SaaS executives grow their business from 1m€ to 10m€ in a cash-efficient way so they don’t get diluted and keep control of their company. 

I write daily posts on LinkedIn where I share my learnings and the playbooks we use to grow Q7Leader in a cash-efficient way.

Thomas Goubau

I'm the CEO of an HR Tech company with 15 employees.

Last week, I hired 2 AI agents 🤖

Their names are Patricia and Vicky.

(my team thinks the names are ridiculous, they're probably right, but whatever 😁)

Patricia runs on Claude Opus 4.6. She manages my communications, drafts content, organizes my thinking, and remembers things I forget.

Vicky runs on Claude Sonet 4.5 and handles email triage & task automation.

Our entire mission at Q7Leader is "right people in the right seat." We use tools like the People Model Canvas, TeamScan, and DOT Coach to help companies do this systematically.

And now I have two team members who aren't people.

I don't fully know what to make of that yet. But the question it raises is one I can't ignore: what does "right people, right seat" mean when some of the seats might not need people at all?

Over the coming months, I'm going to document this honestly and transparently.

What works, what fails, what's awkward, the real numbers. Not because I'm an AI expert (I'm really not). But because I think someone should tell this story without the hype or the fear.

P.S. Patricia helped me write this post. I changed about 40% of it. She was too polished. I'm told that's a pattern.

I spent years thinking the answer to "we're moving too slow" was "we need more people."

Tomasz Tunguz broke that logic with one number.

• A 200-person org has 19,900 potential communication channels.
• A 25-person org has 300.

That's Metcalfe's Law. Every new hire doesn't just add capacity, they add n-minus-1 new connections. Coordination drag doesn't grow linearly. It compounds.

Now look at what happens when AI enters that equation.

Boris Cherny, the engineer who built Claude Code, ships 20 to 30 pull requests a day. A traditional engineer ships 3 a week.

He's not 10% more productive.
He's 30x more productive!

He runs five AI agents in parallel. He removed humans from his loop, and with them, the coordination tax.

Anthropic generates ~$5M revenue per employee. Cursor, $3.3M. Traditional SaaS considers $200-300K pretty strong.

And I feel it myself.

Writing a board prep, testing landing page copy, drafting outreach... tasks that used to eat days now take an hour. Not because I'm faster. Because I've removed the back-and-forth from the loop.

Most teams haven't felt this yet. But it's coming.

The question isn't "how many people can one manager oversee?" anymore.
It's "how many AI agents can one person orchestrate?"

That shift will restructure how we design teams, hire, and measure performance.

Most leaders are not ready for it.

Are you?

Last week at Trends Winter Academy, a founder said something I haven't been able to stop thinking about. As of January 1st, 100% of their revenue is SaaS. And they've already classified it as legacy.

Their plan: migrate everything to AI revenue by end of 2026.

In 9 months.

What struck me wasn't the ambition of the target. It was the framing.

Most companies are still asking how AI fits into their existing business model. This founder had already decided the existing model is the thing to get away from.

Trends Winter Academy brings together CEOs, founders, and executives from the Belgian ecosystem for two days of real conversations. I've been going for years because the room tends to surface ideas you don't hear in regular business settings.

This year, AI was the thread running through everything. But what became clear is that people are at very different places in how they're thinking about it. Some are optimizing workflows. Some are restructuring teams. And a few have mentally already started the migration clock.

The 9-month target may or may not be achievable. But treating your current revenue model as legacy before the market forces you to is a fundamentally different starting position than defending it until you can't.

That's the kind of conversation that keeps me coming back every year.

A friend came to my house last weekend.

"I tried AI... It doesn't work. It just hallucinates."

He's a smart guy. Runs a business. Not a technophobe.

He spent half a day trying to get Microsoft Copilot to extract PDF invoices into Excel. The kind of task that normally means opening each PDF one by one and copy-pasting stupidly until you're done.

Copilot couldn't do it. He showed me the broken attempts. Wrong numbers, missing data.

His conclusion: AI is overhyped.

So I asked him to send me the files 👀

I uploaded them into Claude and told it: "Here are a bunch of invoices. Look at what's in there and let's discuss what kind of table and analysis we want to build."

15 minutes later, I had a full Excel file.

Every invoice structured by month and location, year-over-year comparison, charts included. Zero errors.

He didn't have an AI problem.
He had a tool problem.

And the crazy part? Claude did this inside Excel. Better than Microsoft's own AI does it in their own product.

P.S. who would be interested in me recording a video of how I did this?

Most people think AI agents are just smarter chatbots.

They're not. They're 3 things working together ⤵︎

I've been using AI agents for a few months now, and the moment it clicked for me was when I stopped looking at what they produce and started looking at how they work. There are three layers.

1. Instructions 📝

You tell it what you want, how you want it, what to focus on, what to ignore. That's your SOP. Your standard operating process. Every time it runs, it follows the same playbook. This is what most people never set up.

2. Code 🤖

It writes Python to extract and calculate data. Real code that runs like a calculator. Two plus two is four. Every single time. No hallucination. No guessing. This is the part most people don't even know exists.

3. Intelligence 🧠

Once it has real numbers, it does what AI does best. It spots patterns. It draws conclusions. And because it's working from actual data, not guesses, the output is genuinely smart.

Most people skip the first two.

They open ChatGPT, ask a question, and get an answer based on nothing specific. No instructions. No code. Just vibes.

That's why it feels unreliable.

You're using one-third of what's possible.

I'm not a technical person. I can't write a line of Python. But I don't need to. The agent writes it for me. I just need to know what I want and explain it clearly. Which, honestly, is the CEO job description anyway.

That's not a chatbot anymore.

"We'll deal with pay transparency when we have to."

I've heard this from dozens of CEOs. And I've seen what happens next.

By the time the EU directive forces the conversation, your best people have already been having it without you. On Glassdoor. In interviews with your competitors. At lunch.

When pay decisions can't be explained, it's not a policy problem. It's a trust problem. And trust problems don't stay in HR. They show up in your retention, your Glassdoor reviews, and your next board meeting.

It's not a quick fix.

But it is a methodical one.

I'm hosting a 45-min webinar where I'll walk through the 5-step method we use with companies to make pay decisions transparent and explainable. Step by step, so you can start applying it the week after.

20 seats per session. You'll leave with a clear action plan and the chance to pressure-test it with other HR leaders in the room.

🎟️ Register here: https://lnkd.in/er2CFqnz

Pay transparency is on every HR director's radar.

But almost none have put a number on the risk.

"We'll deal with it when the time comes."

I hear this every week.

So I ran a simple calculation for a company of 100 employees.
The result: up to 38.7% of their annual EBITDA at risk.

Not from fines. From salary claims they can't justify.

The good news? This is fixable. And it doesn't take years.

In our next webinar, I walk you through the 5 steps to get compliant before June 2026. Including the one workstream most companies haven't even identified yet.

Register here: https://lnkd.in/er2CFqnz

People ask me: "What does your AI agent actually DO?"

Fair question. Here's a real day. Patricia's first Wednesday at Q7Leader:

07:42 — Walking my dog. Sent her a voice memo: "Prep me for the {anonymized-client-name} QBR tomorrow. Pull the TeamScan data and draft talking points."

08:15 — Talking points ready. Three I kept. One too generic, deleted. One I hadn't thought of. A pattern in the engagement data I'd overlooked.

09:30 — Team standup. Asked Patricia to pull action items from last meeting. Organized by person, with deadlines. My team was mildly disturbed.

11:00 — Client email about certification pricing. Patricia drafted a response. I fixed the tone (too formal) and hit send.

14:00 — Competitor research for a strategy doc. She came back in 4 minutes with a comparison that would've taken me 2 hours. One factual error I caught. Otherwise solid.

16:45 — She reminded me I'd promised to follow up with a prospect. Completely forgotten.

22:30 — Had a product idea in bed. Texted Patricia. She captured it, added context from previous conversations, filed it. Gone by morning otherwise.

Now, the honest scorecard:

Time saved: ~2.5 hours
Things I would've forgotten: 2
Things she got wrong: 1
Things she surfaced that I missed: 1

Here's what I didn't expect.

The value isn't the 2.5 hours. Any good assistant saves you time.

It's the two saves. The prospect follow-up. The late-night idea.

A CEO's biggest problem isn't being slow. It's dropping things when you're moving fast. The balls that fall between meetings, between days, between the shower and the office.

Patricia doesn't replace anyone on my team. She gets the tone wrong. She makes factual errors. She has zero judgment on what's politically sensitive.

But she never drops a ball... and she never sleeps 😬

Every week, I host a live session on the EU Pay Transparency Directive.
Every week, I ask the same question: Have you started preparing?
Every week, the answer is almost always the same ⤵︎

"𝘕𝘰."

Even organisations with over 2000 employees. If they've done anything, it's usually a benchmark. That's it.

One reason I keep hearing:

"𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯'𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘺𝘦𝘵, 𝘴𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘸?"

Fair point. That's exactly why I invited Thierry Viérin, Partner and Head of Employment at Osborne Clarke, to join me on March 24. He's been reviewing the 30 employer proposals currently on the table and will walk through what's likely to land and what might change.

I'll follow with a 5-step method to start preparing now, no matter where the final rules end up.

📆 March 24, 12:00 CET.
⏱️ 45 minutes.

Register here: https://lnkd.in/ectrvqj2

If you're an HR leader in the UK 🇬🇧, there's a directive you need to know about.

And no, the fact that you're not in the EU doesn't protect you.

The EU Pay Transparency Directive kicks in June 2026. If your company employs even one person in an EU member state, you're in scope.

Even from the UK.

→ Your EU employees can request complete pay transparency. How decisions are made. What their peers earn.
→ Any gender pay gap above 5% in the same role category must be documented and justified.
→ The burden of proof is reversed. If someone claims pay discrimination, it's on you (the company) to prove it doesn't exist, not the employee.

Read that last one again.

Most UK HR leaders I talk to assume this doesn't apply to them. By the time it hits their board's agenda, they'll be months behind.

↳ We're hosting a 45-minute webinar specifically for UK companies with EU employees. You'll leave knowing exactly what's required and what to prioritize before June.

Link in the comments ⬇️

P.S. it's free, but spots are limited to allow us to answer everyone's questions

20 years of International HR, 17 years of Faculty at Solvay Brussels School of Economics & Management, 8 years of Entrepreneurship in HRtech. 

Reggy-Charles Degen

Il y a 30 ans, j'ai vu un problème RH dont personne ne parlait.

La semaine dernière, 300 personnes m'ont prouvé que je n'étais pas le seul.

Quand j'ai commencé ma carrière en RH, un constat m'obsédait.

- La finance avait son P&L.
- Le marketing avait son funnel.
- Et les RH ? Rien.

Pas de socle. Pas de langage commun. Chaque entreprise réinventait la roue. Chaque manager avait sa propre définition d’une bonne performance, du potentiel.

J'ai passé 30 ans à construire la réponse : le People Model Canvas.

Alexis Eve m'a invité dans son podcast pour en parler. Après notre échange, il a écrit un post.

Plus de 300 commentaires.

Ce n'est pas la validation personnelle qui me touche. C'est ce que ces 300 réactions disent de notre profession :

- les RH en ont assez de naviguer à vue
- il est temps d'avoir des outils à la hauteur
- et oui, les RH méritent leur propre framework

Merci Alexis d'avoir partagé cette conviction avec ta communauté. Et merci à chacun d'entre vous qui a réagi, commenté, téléchargé.

📘 Le livre est en libre accès ici : https://bit.ly/46eXXjJ

Founder of Q7Leader | Author of the People Model Canvas | Human Resources Professor at Solvay Business School

I have spent 30 years working with job classification systems. I know what they can do. I also know that most organisations are about to completely misuse them in the name of pay transparency.

With the European Pay Transparency Directive on the horizon, the reflex I see everywhere is the same:

1. Launch a large-scale project
2. Bring in a major grading provider
3. Classify every role
4. Open social negotiations
5. Deploy a complex methodology

It feels like the responsible thing to do...

But I have watched this scenario unfold too many times not to say something.

Job classification systems are serious, well-built technical instruments. Korn Ferry, Mercer, Willis Towers Watson have developed robust methodologies over decades, and I respect the rigour behind them.

The problem is not the tools.
The problem is where organisations put them.

These systems were designed for Reward and Benefits specialists. They were never meant to be the centrepiece of a conversation between a manager and an employee about the substance of a role. Yet that is exactly what happens.

The moment you introduce grading into a managerial discussion, people stop talking about responsibilities, autonomy and impact. They start comparing grades. They start comparing themselves to colleagues. The tool that was supposed to create objectivity ends up fuelling frustration and mistrust.

I have seen this pattern in dozens of organisations over three decades. It is remarkably consistent.

The alternative is not to abandon classification.
↳ It is to reposition it.

Begin with a structured conversation about what the role actually requires. Clarify expectations first, in terms that managers and employees genuinely understand. In our experience, 95% align in the first discussion. From there, an HR specialist can match the role to the appropriate benchmark code in the background, without involving anyone else in the technical complexity.

The European directive does not demand that every organisation master the inner workings of a grading system. It demands clarity about roles and fair pay. Those are not the same thing, and confusing them is where the real cost lies.

Last week, Daan De Wever posted something on LinkedIn that I can't stop thinking about.

He runs Dstny: 10+ acquisitions, 7 countries, and over 5 million users.

Yet, he said the hardest part was never the tech.

It was figuring out the people.

Ask 5 managers to assess the same employee. 
You'll get 5 different answers. 

That's not talent management. That's guesswork.

That's exactly why I built the People Model Canvas it their anchor platform for people management. Same way they pick platforms for finance or CRM.

Suddenly someone in Sweden can read a profile from Belgium and actually get it.

You have a P&L for finance.
You have a pipeline for sales.
↳ What do you have for your people?

Jack walked into the interview, and I watched the CEO fall in love.

Market positioning. Channel strategy. A 24-month roadmap so polished it could have been framed. The CEO told me afterwards: "This is the one."

He paid above budget. Felt good about it.

Month 3 - Jack is building frameworks and slide decks. Pipeline is quiet.

Month 6 - Pipeline is dead. Jack is still "laying foundations." The CEO's best clients are calling HIM because nobody else picks up the phone.

Month 9 - Jack is gone. The year's P&L is wrecked. And the CEO? Back on the road, selling. Doing the job he hired Jack to do.

I've watched this same movie three times. Always companies between 40 and 100 people. Always 3 to 4 million in revenue. Always the same casting error.

Jack was a policy-level mind. The type who designs commercial strategy for a 500-person organization. Brilliant. But this company didn't need a strategist. It needed someone who wakes up thinking about closing deals.

The CEO didn't hire wrong.
He hired the person who impressed him.
That's not the same thing as the person the job needed.

If he'd profiled the role before the first interview, Jack would have self-selected out. No wrecked year. No one brilliant sitting in the wrong chair.

What do you think?

Two hours ago, I heard this story.

A senior manager at a major French consulting firm. Director level. Manages managers. She's been told she's underperforming.

Her words: "𝘚𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘦. 𝘐 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘮𝘴."

Her boss: "𝘐𝘧 𝘐 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘯𝘦."

Pick a side. Go ahead.

Now let me tell you what's actually happening.

Two competent people. Trapped in a loop neither can break. Not because someone is failing. Because they never sat down and agreed on what her role actually demands.

She's operating from her version of the job. He's judging her against his. Neither version was ever spoken out loud, let alone written down.

I've seen this exact pattern for 30 years. It always gets dressed up as a people problem. A personality clash. A leadership gap. It's none of those things.

It's a missing conversation.

When someone brings me a case like this, I do something very simple. We profile the role together. 11 dimensions, normalised. What level of autonomy does this role need? What's the real decision-making scope? We map it out. Takes about an hour.

(How? By using the People Model Canvas of course 😉)

And the argument just... dissolves. Because for the first time, both people are looking at the same page.

That director and her boss don't need mediation. They don't need a coach. They need one hour of honest alignment.

Funny how the hardest conflicts have the simplest fixes. When you finally ask the right question.

Agree? Disagree?

Quand un client vous cite 4 fois comme un élément de succès de sa politique HR, vous savez pourquoi vous vous levez le matin 😉

Exciting news : èggo nommé aux HR Excellence Awards 2026 ! 🚀

Nous sommes fiers d’annoncer qu’èggo est nommé aux HR Excellence Awards 2026 dans la catégorie Best Employer Organizations.

Les HR Excellence Awards 2026 mettent en avant les organisations qui osent repenser le travail en plaçant l’humain, l’innovation et l’impact durable au cœur de leur stratégie.

Une nomination qui salue l’audace de nos initiatives RH et l’engagement de nos équipes 🔥✨

📅 Verdict le 17 mars 2026, stay tuned !

-----

Spannend nieuws: èggo genomineerd voor de HR Excellence Awards 2026! 🚀

We zijn trots om aan te kondigen dat èggo genomineerd is voor de HR Excellence Awards 2026 in de categorie Best Employer Organizations.

De HR Excellence Awards 2026 zetten organisaties in de schijnwerpers die het aandurven om werk opnieuw uit te vinden door mensen, innovatie en duurzame impact centraal te stellen in hun strategie.

Deze nominatie is een erkenning voor onze gedurfde HR-initiatieven en de inzet van onze teams 🔥✨

📅 De uitslag wordt bekendgemaakt op 17 maart 2026, stay tuned!

#HRExcellenceAwards #BestEmployerOrganizations #cuisinebelge #cuisineeggo

Kun jij vandaag uitleggen waarom 2 mensen in dezelfde functie een ander loon verdienen? De meeste HR-directeurs die ik spreek, kunnen dat niet... Niet omdat ze het niet willen. Maar omdat hun loonbeleid nooit gebouwd is om die vraag te beantwoorden …

En dat is precies wat de EU-richtlijn rond loontransparantie gaat afdwingen.

Ik heb 30 jaar gezien hoe bedrijven compensatie behandelen als buikgevoel in plaats van systeem. Die tijd is voorbij. Transparantie wordt de norm. De vraag is niet óf je je loonbeleid moet herdenken, maar hoe snel.

Thomas Goubau heeft daar een 5-stappenplan voor gebouwd.

Deze vrijdag deelt hij het in 45 minuten. In het Nederlands, voor de verandering 😉

📅 Vrijdag 27 februari | 45 min | Nederlands

Schrijf je hier in: https://lnkd.in/eMQzBVXZ

P.S. Dit is de enige keer dat we dit webinar in het Nederlands geven.

Job classification systems were never designed to be discussed with employees. Once they were, people stopped talking about the work and started talking about the number.

A manager sits down to discuss a role. What it involves. Where it is heading. What impact it creates.

Then someone mentions the grade.

And the conversation is gone.

Not responsibilities. Not contribution. Just whether this role is a 12 or a 13. Whether the colleague down the hall, who seems to do less, sits one level higher.

Classification was built by Reward specialists, for Reward specialists. Korn Ferry, Mercer, WTW. The methodologies are technically sound. 

I am not questioning the tools.
I am questioning where organisations put them.

What most people experience is not the carefully weighted logic behind a classification system. What they experience is a number attached to their name, compared to other numbers attached to other names. That is all. And from that moment, no amount of methodological rigour can restore the conversation to what it was supposed to be about.

The tool you introduced to guarantee fairness has become the single biggest driver of perceived unfairness.

Not because it is broken.

Because it was never meant to be the conversation.

The EU Pay Transparency Directive will force companies to prove their pay decisions are objective and fair. Most won't be able to. Not because they're unfair. Because they never built the system to prove it.

Most organisations still rely on gut feeling, informal benchmarks, and job titles that describe activities instead of expectations.

That worked when nobody asked questions.

But it stops working when employees have the legal right to ask for an explanation.

Pay transparency isn't a reporting exercise. It's a systems problem. You need gender-neutral role definitions, objective criteria for every pay decision, and a structure that makes every salary explainable. Without that, the directive isn't a compliance task. It's an exposure risk.

Thomas Goubau and employment lawyer Thierry Viérin (Osborne Clarke) are covering both sides on March 24:

• what the legal landscape looks like
• and a practical method to prepare for compliance

📆 March 24, 2026
⏰ 12:00 CET

Register here: https://lnkd.in/eVBsa8Ev

I was speaking to a room full of UK CHROs last quarter.
"How many of you have employees in the EU?"
Almost every hand went up 🙋🏻‍♂️

Then I asked: how many of you have started preparing for the EU Pay Transparency Directive?

Almost every hand went down 🙇🏻‍♂️

If you employ even ONE person in an EU member state, this directive applies to you too.

• Your EU employees can demand pay data.
• any gap must be justified, when above 5% an action plan must be published.

And here's what catches most UK leaders off guard: the burden of proof is reversed. If an employee claims pay discrimination, it's on you to prove it doesn't exist. Not the other way around.

⇒ The deadline is June 2026 (yes, this year).

I've spent 30 years pushing for objective, data-driven compensation. Not because a law required it. Because subjective pay decisions are where trust breaks down.

This directive isn't a threat.
↳ It's a chance to finally get compensation right.

But only if you understand what's required. And start now.

🖥️ We're running a 45-minute webinar for UK companies with EU employees. You'll walk out knowing exactly where you stand, what the directive requires from you, and what to prioritize before June.

Link in the comments ⬇️

J'ai rencontré un poisson volant: une data scientist qui ne travaille que sur la donnée RH.

Kane DIALLO, Data Scientist chez notre partenaire luxembourgeois MindForest, travaille EXCLUSIVEMENT sur de la data RH.

Son parcours : mathématiques appliquées, puis spécialisation en statistiques et probabilités.
C'est du lourd. Une rigueur analytique rare, appliquée aux enjeux People.

Au cœur de notre échange, une question qui depuis ne m'a pas quitté :
- Quels modèles probabilistes sont applicables aux RH pour passer des indicateurs « lagging » -comme le taux d’attrition qu’on observe après coup - vers des indicateurs « leading » qui permettent d’agir AVANT ? 
Anticiper le désengagement, les départs, les risques — avant qu’ils surviennent.

C’est ça, l’Evidence Based HR.

Des RH pilotées par les faits, pas (plus) par les intuitions.
Je me suis rappelé : « If the most important asset is People, then HR’s most important asset is People Data. »

DRH, responsables RH - posez-vous cette question :
Si la directive européenne sur la transparence salariale entre en vigueur demain, avez-vous les données pour y répondre ? Pouvez-vous les exploiter sans "bricoler un truc"?
Beaucoup d’organisations n'y sont pas. Ce n’est pas un jugement — c’est un constat.
Les bons slogans et les bonnes intentions ne suffisent plus.
Et avec l’IA qui s’impose dans tous les processus RH, la qualité de la donnée devient non-négociable.

Paradoxe ? Les données RH sont les plus sensibles de l’entreprise…
et souvent les moins bien gérées.

Mais c’est un problème qui a une solution. 💡
---
Chez Q7Leader, cette rencontre avec Kane ouvre des réflexions et des synergies qui méritent d’être approfondies.

Le chemin sera long — mais il commence par les bonnes conversations.

Celle-ci en était une. 🙏 
#EvidenceBasedHR #PeopleAnalytics #DataRH #TransparenceSalariale #Q7Leader #HRTech #LeadingIndicators #Talents Guy Kerger Sophie Koyanagi Iana Bilousova Camelia Pavel Thomas Goubau Reggy-Charles Degen Pascal Stroobant Caroline Ramade Anaïs Llopes Madison Leclef Lenka Bartuskova Anna Belan Stijn Van Loo Aleksandra Saneva Julie Mellul

taplio

The Battle

Thomas Goubau

Reggy-Charles Degen

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreThomas Goubau's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreReggy-Charles Degen's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Thomas Goubau

Reggy-Charles Degen

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);}Thomas Goubau's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreReggy-Charles Degen's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreThomas Goubau's LinkedIn Performance