PeopleOps360™ (formerly HumanSmarts®)

Add a Fortune 1000 HR Team without building your own

Co-Founder

mentumm

We put your companies training in one place so your people perform better

LaunchPoint

We are experts in developing online learning that has an meaningful impact

Vistage Worldwide, Inc.

I deliver CEO workshops and facilitate leadership development groups

Expert Speaker & Chair

CAMPUSPEAK

Honored to be represented by the premiere speaking agency in higher education

Expert Speaker

Tom Healy

Delivery of keynote talks, interactive workshops and online education

Founder

Tom Healy is passionate about unlocking human potential.

As a teenager, Tom started his first business and his entrepreneurial spirit only grew. Over his professional career, Tom has founded three successful companies, published five books, delivered over 1,000 presentations, built online education used on over 100 college campuses and developed online training consumed by over one million learners.

Tom has worked with a wide range of organizations, including SMBs, national non-profits, the United States Navy, the Harvard Medical School and Fortune 500 companies.

Tom is an active member of his community and has spent his entire professional life in Scottsdale, AZ where he serves on multiple boards. In his free time, Tom enjoys traveling with his family and is an avid golfer.

People complain about NIL because they expect more loyalty from teenagers than they expect from themselves.

For anyone who doesn’t follow sports, NIL stands for Name, Image, and Likeness. It allows college athletes to get paid for who they are and what they produce. And once you can earn what you’re worth, you go where you feel valued. Just like adults do every day in their careers.

I always find it hilarious when someone rants about 18-year-olds “chasing the highest bidder,” then turns around and leaves their own company for a 20 percent raise without thinking twice. They’ll say it’s for their family or the offer was too good to pass up. Meanwhile they’re chastising kids for doing the exact same thing.

NIL is not the problem. NIL revealed the reality. Talent goes where talent is treated well. That is as true for a five star quarterback as it is for a high performer inside your organization.

And this is the part leaders need to hear. 

Recruiting, developing, and retaining top talent has never been harder. You have to work to get them and you have to fight to keep them. Pay competitively. Give autonomy. Offer flexibility. Build a culture that actually feels good to be a part of. Show people how you’re going to develop them and help them grow. If you don’t do these things, the great people will leave and the mediocre people will stay forever.

The people complaining the loudest about NIL are often the same ones who haven’t built a company worth staying at.

College football mirrors the real world now. That’s not changing. You can complain about it or you can create a place talented people actually want to join and stay in. The choice is yours.

I keep seeing posts from people who have applied for hundreds of jobs without getting a single interview. I get the frustration. But here’s the truth most people never hear.

In 2025, submitting your resume to a job board is about the same as cold-calling random businesses hoping someone picks up. Could it work? Maybe. But the odds are brutal.

More than 80 percent of resumes never get past the initial screening. Fewer than 3 percent of job seekers get an interview from a job board submission. And between 70 and 85 percent of all jobs are filled through networking and referrals, not online applications.

So when someone applies for 300 jobs but doesn’t mention how many people they called, how many contacts they reached out to, or how deeply they worked their network, it tells me they are relying on the easiest tactic everyone else is using. And when you do what everyone else does, you get the results everyone else gets.

There’s another pattern I see on LinkedIn. A lot of job seekers ask their network to do the work for them. Posts that say things like “let me know if you hear of anything” or “DM me if you want to grab coffee” or “keep me in mind.” I know the intent is good, but think about the signal it sends. You’re giving your network homework. You’re asking them to hunt for roles, send you opportunities, scan job boards, and initiate contact.

That is backwards. And it doesn’t work.

You do the work. You call them. You reach out directly. You tell them exactly what you’re looking for. You search their LinkedIn network and ask for specific introductions. You buy them the coffee. You look at the companies they’ve worked for and the people they’re connected to. You make it easy for them to help you.

Because when you give people homework, most won’t do it. Not because they don’t care, but because they’re busy, distracted, tired, or overwhelmed. And some will quietly feel insulted that you want them to carry the load for your search.

This isn’t criticism. It’s a reminder. The job search game has changed. AI has made it even more competitive. Attention is harder to get. And the people who break through are the ones who take real ownership of their search, not the ones who rely on the “submit and hope” strategy or ask others to take the first step.

If you’re looking for your next role, I’m rooting for you. But your network is only powerful if you use it the right way. Be direct. Be specific. Be proactive. And make it effortless for others to help you.

Everyone on LinkedIn has an opinion about remote work. But what does the actual data say?

DISCLAIMER: none of this is one size fits all. Too many people on here make blanket generalizations like “X doesn’t work”. Maybe they think it makes them sound smart? The reality is each CEO needs to make the right decision for THEIR business after considering many factors. Every company is unique and needs its own winning strategy.

Alright, so here is my summary of the best and most recent data I could access…

REMOTE ISN’T GOING AWAY
We have stabilized at 1.27 days per week being done remote and 24% of job postings are for hybrid work. Most people want hybrid, a third want fully remote and under 10% want to be fully on-site.

REMOTE HAS WORKED
We experienced small productivity gains, lower turnover and higher employee satisfaction. Hybrid companies grew at a faster rate than fully in-office companies. 69% of managers say hybrid/remote has made their team more productive. From a pure output standpoint, remote/hybrid works.

REMOTE WORKERS ARE BOTH ENGAGED + DISTRESSED
Fully remote are the most engaged at work, more than hybrids or on-sites. However, they are also significantly more distressed (stress, anger, sadness, worry) which means they are engaged but also emotionally taxed. These remote workers are productive but isolated.

HYBRID SEEMS TO WORK BEST
If possible, all indications are that a hybrid option is best to recruit new talent, balance engagement + performance, keep your culture strong and encourage strong communication. Designing a hybrid environment isn’t easy, but it can work well when done right.

RETURN TO OFFICE STINGS
8 in 10 employers say they lost talented people due to RTO mandates. If you force people to return to the office you’ll more than likely pay for it in turnover, recruiting difficulty and employer brand.

WE’VE SETTLED INTO A NEW OFFICE NORM
In many organizations, things have settled into a cadence of working from home 1-2 days per week. Employers are nudging people (both directly and indirectly) towards being in office 4+ days a week while employees are holding their ground on working from home 2+ days.

PURPOSE-DRIVEN HYBRID IS TRENDING
The most effective formula for many is creating a number of weekly anchor days in office that are designed around connection, feedback and culture building. It strikes the balance between flexibility and the desire for growth and belonging. This needs to be structured and consistent. Many organizations try this approach but have inconsistent or uneven enforcement, which creates resentment.

OK, enough for today… back to work. I could talk about this all day and I’m curious what perspectives others can share. Agree with this? Disagree? Am I missing anything important?

No alternative text description for this image

It’s not your people.

It’s DEFINITELY your process.

Systems beat superheroes.

Good people fail in bad systems.

Because people stop giving their best, when the system keeps wasting their effort.

It’s not a talent problem. It’s an ops problem.

Here’s the difference...

Old way:
➡︎ You hire stars to fix broken processes.
➡︎ You expect them to figure it out as they go.
➡︎ The result? Inconsistency, burnout, and blame.

New way:
➡︎ You build systems that make good work repeatable.
➡︎ You make success the default, not the exception.
➡︎ The result? Predictable outcomes and confident teams.

When systems work, people win.
When systems break, even the best people struggle.

Stop trying to hire your way out of an operational mess.

Build the system once. Let it save you a hundred times.

P.S. What’s one HR system that changed how your team operates?


#operations #hr

Human resources expert Tom Healy explains It’s Not Your People. 
It’s Your Process.

 Old Way: Fix People
Hire stars to patch broken systems
Expect them to “figure it out”
End up with burnout and blame

New Way: Fix Systems
Build processes that make good work repeatable
Define how success happens every time
Create confidence and consistency

When Systems Work
People thrive
Results repeat
Teams stay motivated

When Systems Break
Even the best people struggle
Energy drains
Progress stalls

If you want high performance out of your people, you cannot tolerate low performers.

Here is the hard truth: performance is contagious and it works in both directions.

A study from the Kellogg School of Management shows that sitting within 25 feet of a high performer can lift your own output by about 15 percent.

Another study shows that sitting near a low performer can drag your productivity down by up to 30 percent.

That is not a small ripple. That is a tidal wave.

Research on organizational performance shows that teams with low performers often operate at only 60 to 75 percent of their potential. In other words, when you tolerate underperformance, you leave 25 to 40 percent of results on the table.

High performers do not just deliver more. They elevate the people around them. Their habits, pace, expectations, and standards pull others upward.

Low performers do the opposite. They slow teams down. They create drag. They normalize mediocrity.

Here is the rule leaders hate to admit. What you tolerate is what you get.

If you tolerate underperformance, you will get more of it.

If you surround your team with high performers and hold a high standard, you will get high performance.

If you want excellence, you must insist on it. Performance spreads. Make sure the right people are setting the pace.

Busy isn’t leadership...

... and more meetings don’t mean progress.

You can lead all day and still move in circles.

Let’s be honest. Most teams don’t have a workload problem.
They have a focus problem.

You can hit every target and still miss the point.

3 signs your team’s just busy, not effective:
1️⃣ You reward hustle, not impact.
Hard work looks good on paper.
But direction beats effort every single time.

2️⃣ You run on urgency, not priority.
Everything’s a fire drill. Nothing compounds.
If everything’s “critical,” nothing actually is.

3️⃣ You track hours, not outcomes.
Busy people perform for optics.
Great ones perform for progress.

Real momentum starts when leaders stop measuring effort and start measuring effect.

Leadership isn’t about doing more.

It’s about doing what actually matters.

#teamculture #workculture

Human resources expert Tom Healy explains that busy isn't leadership.

Employers keep complaining about “a lack of talent,” but most are doing the laziest possible version of recruiting.

Posting a job on a board and hoping the perfect person shows up is the HR equivalent of a salesperson sending cold emails all day and then whining that no one replies. It is the easiest tactic, the lowest effort, and the one with the worst odds of success.

And the data backs it up.

Fewer than 3 percent of applicants from job boards ever get an interview. More than 80 percent of resumes never get past the initial screening. Sixty percent of employers say they receive too many unqualified applications from job boards. Yet most companies still treat job boards as their primary sourcing strategy.

If you rely on the easiest strategy, you will get the weakest results. Period.

If your sales team was only doing the easiest activity and not getting results, you would not tell them to keep doing it. You would demand they prospect in other ways, become more creative, and get proactive. Recruiting is no different.

So if you’re unhappy with the talent you’re seeing, try this instead of posting another job and crossing your fingers.

-> Ask your top performers who they know. The best people tend to know other great people.
-> Build an internal referral engine. Incentivize it. Celebrate it. Make it part of the culture.
-> Bring back former high performers who left on good terms. A lot of people want to “come home” if asked.
-> Tap into your personal networks. Think about who you admire, who has impressed you, and who would elevate your team. Call them directly.
-> Explore non traditional talent pools. Veterans. Career switchers. Skilled trades. Community college graduates. People who never pursued a four year degree.
-> Give serious consideration to people reentering the workforce after incarceration. Many are highly motivated and come through job training programs with strong support systems.
-> Look at high school graduates who want to work, learn, and grow. Raw talent is still talent.
-> Build relationships with local community colleges, bootcamps, and trade programs.
-> Connect with local meetups, industry groups, and associations where ambitious people gather.
-> Recruit like a salesperson. Go outbound.

If you take recruiting seriously, it will change your company. If you treat it like a passive chore, you will keep getting passive results.

You can hire A-players and outwork competitors but…

Growth isn’t sustainable without clarity.

In founder-led teams I advise, the stall shows up around 30–50 people. Slack gets louder. Decisions drift.

Leaders “fix” it with more meetings and more tools.
Speed drops. Morale dips. That’s the Clarity Wall.

Here’s what I implement with clients to break it:

Alignment without meeting bloat
→ North Star on one page with 3–5 quarterly bets
→ Weekly Business Review (doc-first): Discuss reds/yellows; greens get kudos, not minutes
→ Team Weekly with a visible Rule of 3 commitments

The first manager layer that scales, not suffocates
→ Manager Minimum Standard: Weekly 1:1s, expectations in writing, a simple feedback loop, and a visible decision log
→ 30/60/90 Enablement with real coaching and inspection (no training theater)

What clients see again and again
→ Decision time shrinks (opened → decisioned)
→ Fewer meetings, more decisions because pre-reads do the heavy lifting
→ Consistency rises across teams. Expectations and decisions stop living in DMs

Bluntly: Clarity isn’t “more communication.” Clarity is architecture.
North Star → WBR → Rule of 3 → Managers who run the system.

Which wall are you hitting first, alignment or that first manager layer?

Comment below and I'll respond with a two-step fix. 👇

Growth hits limits. Clarity breaks them. Every company meets the wall. You know the moment. Slack pings feel louder. Decisions that used to take five 

Open article: The Clarity Wall: What worked for 5 doesn’t for 50  by Tom Healy • 6 min read

The Clarity Wall: What worked for 5 doesn’t for 50

If you’re still paying everyone close to the industry median salary and expecting exceptional results, you’re already losing.

Top tier performers (call them A players, high impact people, whatever) deliver a level of ROI that makes “market salary” basically irrelevant.

Here’s the data:

-> McKinsey found top performers in critical roles can deliver up to 800 percent more productivity than the average employee.
-> Multiple studies show high performers drive 200 to 300 percent more output.
-> In sales, top contributors often produce 5 to 10 times their total compensation.

So paying someone 20 or even 40 percent above the market rate is not overpaying. It’s smart. Because you’re buying two to three times the output.

Where companies get stuck is treating salary data as a hard ceiling. It isn’t. Your industry, business model, role criticality, growth stage, and standards for excellence matter far more than an aggregated salary number on Google.

If you want a performance culture, compensation has to reflect performance. Not tenure. Not who complains the most. Not who negotiated best on day one.

Pay top talent top dollar. Break the so-called pay scale when someone actually earns it. The cost is irrelevant when the ROI is undeniable.

If the CEO tries to delegate culture, the culture is already in trouble.

I see it constantly. A CEO hands off “culture” to a member of their leadership team because it feels soft, vague, or like something someone else should handle.

Big mistake.

Yes, leaders should delegate. Yes, leaders should empower their team. But culture is different. Culture is the one thing you cannot outsource because culture is the tone the CEO sets and everyone else amplifies.

And the data backs this up.

McKinsey found that companies with strong, intentionally shaped cultures are three times more likely to achieve sustained performance.

This is why I look at the entire employee lifecycle through the lens of culture….

Your job descriptions.
Your interview process.
Your onboarding.
Your performance management.
Your turnover.
Your leadership bench.
Your customer experience.

It either aligns with the culture you say you want or it exposes that your culture is just words on a website.

CEOs cannot run from culture. They have to define it, model it, and reinforce it.

Most companies still evaluate people using gut feel and guesswork. And it’s failing them.

Gartner found that 82 percent of companies say their performance reviews do a poor job of identifying high and low performers. In other words, leaders are making major talent decisions with almost no real data.

And let’s be honest. If you are a CEO who says “I trust my gut,” ask yourself something uncomfortable. Has your gut been perfect the last few years? Every personal decision. Every professional decision. Every hiring call. Every promotion. Every investment. Every strategic move. All flawless? With everything else pulling at your attention, your gut is supposed to be the most accurate talent-evaluation tool in the company? Or is it possible you have blind spots like every other human being?

This is why the Google example matters. Sergey Brin shared that he asked Gemini, inside an internal Google chat, who should be promoted. The AI surfaced a junior engineer quietly doing exceptional work. Her manager confirmed it. She was promoted. No politics. No visibility bias. Just performance.

Every company has data like that. Meeting transcripts. Chats. Emails. Real work. You can run it through your internal AI and ask objective questions like: Who consistently contributes? Who follows through? Who quietly outperforms?

AI will not replace human judgment. But ignoring it is irresponsible. Modern leadership requires modern evaluation. Use every objective tool you have. Your best people deserve better than someone’s gut.

Companies won’t like hearing this, but the main reason a four year degree still holds power is because many employers still require one.

If companies stopped requiring degrees tomorrow, the entire college system would lose significant leverage overnight. Exponentially more eighteen year olds would suddenly have the opportunity to consider different paths. And the truth is, many of them would thrive.

What happens if kids who traditionally go to college skip it entirely and go straight into the workforce?

Before you react, think back to who you were at 18. If you skipped college and started working immediately, would your life have collapsed? Or would you have figured it out and done just fine?

I know exactly how it would have gone for me. After my freshman year of college, I interned at a well known organization and thrived. High pressure meetings. Building multimillion dollar proposals. Professional communication. Client interactions. Technology. Deadlines. I handled all of it at 18 years old.

If I had started in the workforce directly out of high school, I would have been successful. Different memories, different path, but similar trajectory.

But it takes two to tango and I would have needed a company who believed in me enough to give me that opportunity without a college diploma on my resume.

College helped me. But it wasn’t necessary. And the world is different than it was decades ago when many of us went to college.

And companies are finally starting to admit it.

Google. IBM. Delta. Tesla. Bank of America. Penguin Random House. All have dropped degree requirements for significant portions of their roles. IBM says about half of its US jobs no longer require a four year degree. Google openly states that skills matter more than degrees.

If the most respected companies in the world no longer see a degree as a predictor of performance, why are we still pretending it is?

Now let’s talk “resumes”. Up to 55 percent of resumes contain exaggerations or outright lies. We’re holding 18 year olds hostage to a system built around documents that adults routinely fabricate.

The market is shifting. Slowly, but inevitably. Companies are realizing what actually predicts success and those aren't guaranteed by taking college classes. 

I’m not anti college. I’m anti lazy thinking. The idea that a degree is the default path for every high potential kid is outdated and unsupported by the data.

And here’s the real tipping point. When more companies finally drop degree requirements, the entire dynamic changes. The pressure on 18 year olds evaporates. More doors open. More paths become viable. More talent gets discovered earlier. Kids who traditionally have been left behind are given equal opportunities to prove themselves.

If you’re an employer, try it once. Hire one or two high potential non degree candidates and watch what happens.

You might realize that the only thing holding them back was your requirement, not their capability.

taplio

Tom Healy's Linkedin Analytics

Tom Healy

Performance ScoreTom Healy's LinkedIn Performance

Tom Healy's Best Posts (last 30 days)

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

.css-6ytdur{background-image:linear-gradient(284deg, rgba(39, 43, 72, 1) 0%, rgba(33, 47, 183, 1) 100%);color:transparent;-webkit-background-clip:text;background-clip:text;}Tom Healy's Linkedin Analytics

Tom Healy

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);}Tom Healy's LinkedIn Performance

Tom Healy's Best Posts .css-1emoo84{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:400;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);}(last 30 days)

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Tom Healy's Linkedin Analytics

Performance ScoreTom Healy's LinkedIn Performance

Tom Healy's Best Posts (last 30 days)