Craig Leach, MBA

I help CEOs, CHROs, and private owners build senior leadership teams that actually stay and perform. With 30+ years of leading and hiring teams myself, I run executive searches where 96% of placements are still in the role at 12 months and 94% at 24 months.​Who I work with:CEOs, CHROs, and PE/owner‑operators who need C‑Suite, VP, and Director‑level leaders.Organizations in agribusiness, finance, food &amp; beverage, and pet that are navigating growth, transformation, or succession.Senior leaders who can’t afford a mis‑hire in a key role.The problems I solveCritical executive roles sitting open for months and dragging on performance.Costly mis‑hires that damage culture, credibility, and momentum.Leadership transitions where the wrong hire can set the business back years.How I workExecutive search with a defined, transparent process from intake through onboarding.Deep discovery around business model, culture, and success profile before we ever go to market.Direct outreach to targeted leaders, not just posting and praying.Structured interviews and rigorous vetting so you see a tight shortlist of high‑probability finalists.What you can expect96% of placements still in role at 12 months; 94% at 24 months.​Reduced “commercial downtime” from open leadership roles.Fewer mis‑hires, stronger succession benches, and better retention at the top of the house.Ways to work with meRetained executive search for C‑Suite, VP, and Director roles.Contingency search for key commercial, technical, and leadership contributors.Executive coaching for senior leaders and high‑potential successors.When to call meYou’re planning a leadership change in the next 6–24 months.You’ve outgrown your current leadership team and need a different caliber of talent.You want a search partner who understands P&amp;L, operations, and markets—not just résumés.Ready to talk about your senior leadership hiring roadmap?Book time with me here: https://calendly.com/6202205911/30min

President

Craig Leach

I met a Director-level leader 24 months ago.

No clear path to the C-suite. Just potential waiting to be unlocked.

Here's what the journey looked like:

• Month 3: Identified leadership gaps and blind spots
• Month 12: Placed in VP role, first C-suite step
• Month 24: Appointed CEO of a growing firm

Today, they're leading a full organization with confidence and clarity.

By next year, they'll be scaling a team and driving enterprise-level growth.

The reason it worked: mindset shifted before the title ever did.

To move from Director to CEO

To stop being overlooked for the top seat

To lead with authority, not just competence

Over 24 months, I helped them:

• Build a C-suite personal brand
• Master executive presence and influence
• Navigate high-stakes career decisions

They mastered the transition from functional expert to enterprise leader.

And recently, they sent me a message I won't forget.

My executive coaching and search process can help you:

• Identify your fastest path to the C-suite
• Close the gaps holding you back
• Land the role you've been building toward

The seat at the top doesn't find you. You build toward it.

DM me if you're ready to start.

Executive Search for C‑Suite & VPs | I Help CEOs & CHROs Build Senior Leadership Teams That Stay | 96% 12‑Month, 94% 24‑Month Retention | 2x Top Voice

The CEO who hired his replacement—and didn't know it.

I placed a VP of Operations for a mid-sized manufacturing company three years ago.

The CEO called me personally. "Craig, I need someone who can eventually run this place. Someone better than me at the stuff I'm not good at."

Rare self-awareness. I found him exactly that.

The VP came in and delivered. Streamlined operations. Built relationships with the board. Earned trust across every department.

By year two, something shifted.

The CEO started cc'ing me on emails. "Just checking in." Asking if I'd heard any "rumblings." Wanting to grab coffee more often.

He never said it directly. But I knew.

He was watching his replacement outgrow him in real time.

Here's what I've seen in 200+ placements:

The CEOs who struggle with this moment share a pattern:
• They hired for capability but expected a ceiling
• They wanted transformation but not succession
• They said "run this place" but meant "run it for me"

The CEOs who handle it well? They do something counterintuitive.

They accelerate the transition.

That manufacturing CEO? He called me six months ago. Not to complain. To tell me he'd recommended his VP to the board as his successor.

"I hired him to be better than me. Turns out he is."

He's now chairman. The former VP is CEO. Revenue is up 23%.

Most executives won't admit this:

The hardest part of hiring great talent isn't finding them.

It's being secure enough to let them surpass you.

Have you ever hired someone who outgrew you?

The question that predicts your next 5 years...

"Should I take the bigger title or the better boss?"

I hear this constantly. Executives sitting on two offers. One has the title. The other has the leader.

Here's what I tell them:

In 200+ placements, I've tracked what happens next. The pattern is brutal.

The executives who chase titles? They win on LinkedIn for six months. Then they spend the next four years recovering from a boss who didn't develop them, didn't protect them, and didn't care.

One VP I had previously placed chose the Chief title over the better leader.

Eighteen months later, he called me. His CEO took credit for every win. Threw him under the bus to the board. Blocked his access to key decisions.

He left with a damaged reputation and two years of his career he'll never get back.

The executives who choose the better boss? Different story.

They get:
• Air cover when things go wrong
• Access to rooms they wouldn't be in otherwise
• Honest feedback that actually makes them better
• A reference that opens doors for decades

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗤𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗜 𝗔𝘀𝗸 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗘𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲:

"Will this person make you better or just make you busier?"

Titles are negotiable. You can earn them anywhere.

A great boss? That's rare. That's the accelerator.

The best executives I know didn't climb the fastest ladder. They climbed the right one.

Who's the boss that shaped your career most?

A CEO told me last week he's terrified of AI.

Not because it's moving too fast.

Because his leadership team refuses to touch it.

He's 58 years old. Built his company from scratch. Runs a $400M manufacturing business.

And he's learning AI faster than his 40-year-old executives.

He showed me his workflow. Uses Claude for strategic analysis. Built custom GPTs for competitive intelligence. Spends an hour every morning experimenting.

His C-suite? They've delegated AI to IT. Call it "a tech thing." Haven't opened ChatGPT since the hype died down.

Last month, he asked his CFO a simple question: "How could AI change our forecasting process?"

The CFO's answer: "I'll have someone look into it."

That's when he called me.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗜'𝗺 𝗦𝗲𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴:

The executives who dismiss AI aren't just behind on technology.

They're signaling something deeper: resistance to change, comfort with the status quo, unwillingness to feel like a beginner again.

That's a leadership problem, not a skills gap.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗤𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗜 𝗔𝘀𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝗛𝗶𝗺:

"Do you want to coach them into the future, or recruit people who are already there?"

He sat with that for a long time.

Then he said: "I've given them two years. They've had every resource. Every opportunity. They just don't care."

Some gaps can be closed with training.

Some gaps reveal who's willing to evolve and who isn't.

200+ placements taught me this: The executives who thrive aren't the ones with the best credentials.

They're the ones who stay curious when it's uncomfortable.

When's the last time your leadership team learned something that made them feel like beginners?

Performance reviews are corporate theater.

I've coached executives through hundreds of them—on both sides of the table.

Here's what I've learned: The words don't mean what you think they mean.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗚𝘂𝗶𝗱𝗲:

"You're doing great work."
→ Nothing's changing this cycle. No raise. No promotion. Same seat.

"There's room for growth."
→ You're not getting promoted. Maybe not this year. Maybe not ever here.

"Let's revisit this next quarter."
→ I'm hoping you forget. And if you don't, I'll push it again.

"We value your contributions."
→ You're not a priority, but we don't want you to leave yet.

"You're a key part of the team."
→ Key enough to keep. Not key enough to invest in.

"Keep doing what you're doing."
→ I have no feedback for you because I haven't been paying attention.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗜 𝗦𝗲𝗲:

The executives who get blindsided by layoffs, passed over for promotions, or stuck in the same role for years?

They believed the words.

The ones who advance?

They read between the lines. They ask the uncomfortable follow-up: "What would need to change for me to be promoted in the next 12 months?"

If your manager can't answer that clearly, you have your answer.

Performance reviews don't tell you where you stand.

They tell you what the company wants you to believe.

What's the most misleading feedback you've ever received?

The questions that save CEOs from $500K mistakes

After 200+ placements, I've watched executives make the same costly errors.

Not because they lacked intelligence. Because they asked the wrong questions.

The CEOs who avoid expensive mistakes share a pattern. They slow down when everyone else speeds up.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗜'𝘃𝗲 𝗦𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸:

𝗕𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴:
"What will this person need to succeed that we're not currently providing?"

Most CEOs ask if the candidate can do the job. The best ones ask if they can support them once they're in it.

𝗕𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴:
"Who will I lose that I can't afford to lose?"

Reorgs look clean on paper. The collateral damage shows up six months later.

𝗕𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗲𝘀:
"What am I not seeing because I want this to work?"

The deals that blow up always had warning signs. Someone just chose not to look.

𝗕𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴:
"Am I handing off responsibility or just accountability?"

One creates leaders. The other creates scapegoats.

𝗕𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗺𝗲𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴:
"What question am I hoping no one asks?"

That's the one you need to answer first.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗜 𝗦𝗲𝗲:

The $500K mistakes rarely come from bad decisions.

They come from good decisions made without the right questions.

The executives who avoid them aren't smarter. They're more willing to slow down when the pressure says speed up.

What question do you wish you'd asked before a costly mistake?

Manu Rehani is a pioneering innovator in the field of Applied Behavioral & Cognitive Linguistics. 

He is an inventor, mentor and board advisor for a number of startups in Texas, California and the EU. After successfully exiting two tech ventures he’s currently focused on developing a new class of emotion-aware AI for general application in custom GPT’s and LLM’s, and specific use in mental health and wellness applications to foster a healthy relationship with self and others through AI. 

His significant prior achievements include authoring patents fundamental to cloud storage and AI language models, and he plays an active role in mentoring at various incubators, at the University of Texas and in the Austin area.

Manu R.

Are we approaching the last year of meaningful work?

Before answering that, I’m more curious about something else: What does meaningful work actually mean to you? When was the last time you genuinely felt that what you do matters?

It’s not every morning that we wake up thinking, “I can’t wait to work.” Let’s be honest. And with AI entering almost every corner of what we do — bringing both anxiety and incredible convenience, the tension feels real. It’s a double-edged sword.

My experience: Working on HeyIssa has felt different from my earlier projects. The team is smaller, and I’ve been directly involved in almost everything... the structure, the copy, the flow. It’s still in the waitlist phase, but I’ve spent time going over the sign-up page more than most people probably would. Rewriting lines. Simplifying what we’re trying to say. Making sure it doesn’t overpromise. One evening, while adjusting a sentence again, I realized I wasn’t doing it for optics or growth. I just didn’t want it to feel sloppy or insincere. That’s when it felt meaningful. I cared so much about getting it right.

Care to share how you define "meaning"? I’ve been exploring this question through the lens of AI, identity, and judgment. 

Article coming soon; tune in here -  https://lnkd.in/gUu7u6Sf

Manu Rehani

Founder | Inventor | Advisor | Mentor | Interdisciplinary Innovator

Y2K was a glitch. 2012 was a myth. But what if 2026 being the “last year of meaningful work” isn’t either?

Chad Hurley's lament on X has been sitting with me ever since I heard it. This piece is an attempt to take it seriously... as a question about how work is changing, and what remains deeply human when machines begin to understand us.

“Hope everyone enjoys their last year of meaningful work.” - Chad Hurley, YouTube CoFounder Chad Hurley said it lightly, almost as an aside. It drew a

Open article: The Last Year of Meaningful Work? by Manu Rehani • 6 min read

Last week, I wrote about a line from Chad Hurley that lingered longer than expected: “Hope everyone enjoys their last year of meaningful work.”
It sparked a lot of conversation. But when you look at the early data, the story becomes more nuanced.

A recent brief from The Budget Lab at Yale suggests that most jobs aren’t single tasks. They’re bundles of different activities... and AI tends to affect only some of them.

So if this isn’t the last year of meaningful work…what is actually happening to work? I explore that question in the latest issue of The Manuscript. Read on:

Hello again, and welcome back to The Manuscript. Let's backtrack and pick up the discussion on what we've gone over the last week... “Hope everyone en

Open article: If This Isn’t the Last Year of Meaningful Work… by Manu Rehani • 5 min read

If This Isn’t the Last Year of Meaningful Work…

Last week I wrote about a line from Chad Hurley that stayed with me longer than expected... until now! (“Hope everyone enjoys their last year of meaningful work!” he said)

The piece explored a question I’ve been sitting with: if AI begins to handle more of the execution in knowledge work, does it change what we mean by meaningful work?

While working on the next article, I came across an analysis from the The Budget Lab at Yale that looks at how AI exposure varies across occupations. One chart in particular caught my attention.

It breaks exposure down by the share of women in different professions. A few patterns stood out:
- Occupations with the lowest AI exposure (construction, maintenance, physical trades) are still heavily male-dominated.
 - Occupations with mid-level female representation (around 30-50%) show the highest disagreement about AI exposure.
 - Majority-women professions split into two different worlds: office administration (more exposed) and healthcare/care roles (much less exposed).

I attached a screenshot but I would want you to visit their analysis so you can see for yourself: https://lnkd.in/gwpmijgP

But I guarantee, the data, It’s interesting. The impact of AI may depend less on gender itself and more on the structure of the work being done. 

As we mark Women’s History Month, it’s a good moment to reflect on how many different forms of work women contribute across industries, and how those roles continue to evolve alongside new technologies.

More soon!

taplio

The Battle

Craig Leach

Manu R.

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreCraig Leach's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreManu R.'s LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Craig Leach

Manu R.

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Craig Leach's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreManu R.'s LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreCraig Leach's LinkedIn Performance