Change Leadership, General Manager PFA @ Batgroup & Member of the Board @ Putzfrauenagentur

Leadership isn’t about volume.
It’s about clarity, confidence and direction when the pressure is on.

I partner with HR leaders, GMs and Executive Teams across MENA & Asia to strengthen leadership capability from the ground up. My work sits where strategy, people and day-to-day execution meet in service-driven organisations.

Most performance issues in hospitality, retail and education aren’t about effort.
They come from three gaps:

❌ Leaders promoted before they’re ready to lead
❌ Executive Teams pulling in different directions
❌ No clear pipeline or succession to stabilise performance

So my work covers both sides of the leadership equation:

Strategy & alignment for senior teams
Facilitated Strategy Days that help GMs and Executive Teams:
✅ Agree a small set of must-win priorities
✅ Translate those into a 90-day execution plan
✅ Build the clarity and focus teams need to perform
✅ Name the leadership behaviours that sustain results

Leadership development for emerging & mid-level managers
Practical, human-centred programmes that build the skills to lead through others, communicate with clarity and coach across cultures.

Coaching & capability building
1:1 and group coaching, Train-the-Trainer, and tailored L&D that strengthen the pipeline and reduce turnover.

Across 25+ years with Apple Retail, Swissôtel, St. Regis and service organisations in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, one truth holds: engagement and commercial performance rise when leaders at every level know where they’re going and how to bring their people with them.

If you’re building your leadership pipeline or want stronger alignment at the top, I’m happy to explore how we can work together.

📞 Book a call: https://cal.com/jeffross

Jeff Ross

I’ve been quiet on LinkedIn for a few weeks.
Intentionally.

The end of 2025, especially early Q4, was demanding. Not just professionally, but mentally and emotionally too. So I chose to step back, spend time with family, and create some much-needed white space.

Here’s the thing we don’t talk about enough in leadership:

Growth doesn’t only happen in motion.
Sometimes it happens in pause.

Over the break, I did what I often encourage leaders to do, though many struggle to make time for:
• Reflect honestly on what worked (and what didn’t)
• Revisit priorities instead of blindly setting new goals
• Notice patterns in my own behaviour under pressure
• Ask better questions, rather than rushing to better answers

Self-awareness isn’t built in the middle of constant execution.
It’s built in moments of distance.

The leaders I see grow the most aren’t the ones who push hardest every quarter.
They’re the ones who regularly step back, recalibrate, and return with more clarity than noise.

As we step into 2026, my focus is simple:
Fewer reactions.
Clearer priorities.
More intentional leadership, starting with myself.

If you haven’t created space to reflect yet, consider this your reminder:
White space isn’t time lost.
It’s leadership work.

Here’s to a more conscious, grounded, and human year ahead.

Helping service brands align strategy, strengthen pipelines and deliver consistent performance | Strategy Days, L&D and coaching | MENA and Asia

People are not “human capital”.
And they are not “assets” either.

I keep seeing employees described this way in leadership, L&D, and wellbeing content.

I understand the origin of the term.
Historically, human capital described skills and capabilities built through investment, not the people themselves.

But the distinction has blurred.

Here is the line I think we need to redraw.

❌ People are not capital
❌ People are not assets

They are human beings who choose, every day, how much energy and judgement they bring to work.

Human capital is what grows through investment
Skills. Confidence. Capability. Leadership depth.

That growth comes from:
✅ training done properly, not tick-box
✅ coaching that changes behaviour
✅ managers who develop people, not just measure them
✅ time and safety to learn, practise, and think

That is where human capital lives.

Language shapes decisions.
Decisions shape culture.

If we want more human leadership, we should start by speaking like humans, not balance sheets.

Calling people “human capital” is already the problem.

If people are capital, then what are they?

Owned?
Optimised?
Written off when returns dip?

No serious leader believes this.
Yet the language sticks.

Here is a cleaner distinction.

People are not human capital.
People are not assets.

Human capital is the outcome of investment, not the object of it.

You build it when you:
✅ develop managers instead of promoting the best technician
✅ coach leaders instead of just reviewing them
✅ invest in learning instead of squeezing efficiency
✅ play the long game, not just the quarter

Strong organisations do not extract value from people.

They create conditions where capability compounds.

If your culture talks about people like inventory,
do not be surprised when engagement feels transactional.

Words are never “just semantics”.
They are shortcuts to how decisions get justified.

In fast growing organisations across the UAE, managers are often promoted quickly to keep pace with expansion.

What usually does not scale at the same speed is leadership capability.

New managers are suddenly expected to lead multicultural teams, absorb pressure from both sides, and deliver consistency under operational intensity.

With little preparation.

When that happens, managers compensate.

➡️ They over control.
➡️ They escalate everything.
➡️ They work longer hours instead of building capability.

❌ This is not a motivation issue.
❌ It is not a generational issue.
✅ It is a pipeline design issue.

Growth without leadership infrastructure creates silent pressure in the middle.
And silent pressure always leaks somewhere.

If you want scale without burnout, development cannot be assumed.
It has to be designed.

In the UAE and GCC, managers are expected to be decisive, inclusive, and steady, all at once.

When we don’t develop them for that reality,
pressure doesn’t disappear.

It concentrates.

Promoted for doing the job.
Stuck because you are still doing it.

The peer to manager transition is not a mindset problem.
It is a capacity design problem.

If nothing changes in how time, decisions, and responsibility are allocated, leadership never starts.

What I have seen work repeatedly is simple and structured:

✅ 30 percent doing the old tasks to stabilise
✅ 30 percent pairing and teaching to hand over
✅ 40 percent coaching, prioritising, removing blockers

For the first 60 days.

One rule makes or breaks it.
The handover must be scheduled.

If it stays informal, it does not happen.
Urgency will always win.

A promotion does not create leadership.
The moment you stop being the bottleneck does.

Question worth answering this week:
Which task will you stop doing by Friday, and who will learn it instead?

Training the peer-to-manager transition muscle

If a manager is still doing most of the work, you have not promoted a leader.
You have relabelled a high performer.

Leadership starts when decisions move down, accountability stays up, and capability is built deliberately.

Without that shift, organisations stay dependent on individuals instead of systems.

This is why middle management feels stretched in so many businesses.
The role changes, but the expectations do not.

❌ Titles do not create leverage.
✅ Design does.

✅ When leadership transitions are supported early, pressure reduces later.
❌ When they are ignored, problems surface quietly and expensively.

The question is not whether someone earned the promotion.
The question is whether the system changed enough to let them lead.

Coming up on one year since we moved back to the UAE.

So much has changed since we lived here nearly two decades ago, and a lot of that change has been really good.

I’ve seen owners of large companies walk the floor, greet employees by name, ask about their families, and mean it.

And then I’ve seen something else, in the same companies:
Middle managers who abuse power over the people under their care.

Not always loudly.
Sometimes it’s subtle:

❌ public shaming disguised as ‘standards’
❌ threats disguised as ‘performance’
❌ pressure passed down because ‘that’s how we do things here’

Here’s the part leaders don’t want to hear:

Culture doesn’t scale through the founder’s intent.
It scales through the manager’s habits.

And the numbers in MENA should make every owner pause:

Only 14% of employees are engaged, while 24% are actively disengaged.

46% are watching for or actively seeking a new job.

31% experienced anger ‘a lot of the day’ yesterday.

Only 25% are ‘thriving’ in life evaluation.

You can invest millions in brand, strategy, and service standards…

…but if a middle manager creates fear, distrust, and turnover, your business pays for it twice:

in retention + recruiting costs
in inconsistent service + customer experience

Gallup has a brutal line leaders should sit with:

Managers drive most of the variance in team engagement.

So the fix isn’t ‘hire faster’ when people resign.
The fix is slow down and build the capability that prevents the resignations in the first place:

✅ Train new managers before they ‘learn leadership’ by copying the worst examples.
✅ Coach existing managers on how to lead under pressure (without leaking it onto their teams).
✅ Make people metrics visible at leadership level (turnover, internal mobility, manager 360s, team climate).
Reward leaders who build trust, not just those who hit numbers.

Because in this region, trust is everything.

And owners should be able to trust their management teams to execute the vision, for the business and for the people.

Question for leaders in the Gulf:
Where is your culture breaking, in strategy, or in the middle layer where it gets executed?

In fast-growing organisations across the UAE and GCC, leadership gaps rarely show up at the top.
They show up in the middle.

High-performing specialists are promoted quickly to keep pace with growth.
Suddenly they’re expected to:

➡️ lead multicultural teams
➡️ balance global standards with local realities
➡️ deliver consistency under constant operational pressure

Without a leadership pipeline, this becomes improvisation.

That is not a talent issue.
It’s a development design issue.

Organisations that scale sustainably here invest early in:

✅ leadership transitions, not just promotions
✅ manager development as ongoing infrastructure
✅ clarity, coaching, and judgement, not just skills

Middle management doesn’t fail loudly in this region.

It absorbs pressure quietly, until it can’t.

Many first time managers say the same thing, quietly.
“I do not want to get this wrong.”

So they hold on longer than they should.
They delay delegation.
They avoid conversations they know are coming.

Not because they lack confidence.
Because they lack support.

Leading former peers, older colleagues, or more experienced team members carries real emotional weight.

When organisations treat new managers as finished products, people protect themselves.
When they treat them as learners, behaviour changes.

❌ Confidence does not come from the title.
✅ It comes from practising leadership with permission to learn.

If you want managers who act calmly under pressure, give them room to build judgement before you test it.

I write powerful stories that turn audience curiosity into commitment for founders and consultants.

I’m the best relationship you’ll never mention in a meeting. 

Officially, I’m a copywriter and story strategist. In practice, I’m a ghostwriter who slips into different personas to make executives and industry leaders sound effortlessly sharp.

I read philosophy because I’m attracted to good minds, and because clear thinking is the foundation of persuasive writing. 

My job is to help you show off yours without ever sounding like you’re trying.

I have a mildly obsessive relationship with research and run multiple social pages purely to study how ideas behave inside the algorithm.

The goal is simple: I take chaotic, half-formed thoughts and refine them into strategic, memorable, and powerful messaging for your business.

I don’t bite, unless it’s a bad argument.

Curious? Drop into my DMs with a question and let’s see if we click.

Email: hi@pearlinglim.com

Pearling Lim

What if stability in business is a myth we tell ourselves to feel safe?

Most founders think they’re fighting competitors, bad hires, or market cycles.
They’re not.

They’re fighting ENTROPY.

Entropy explains why strong teams lose their edge, why cultures decay without a clear villain, and why companies that “did everything right” still fall apart. It exposes the biggest lie in business: the belief in a steady state.

We assume that once the right team is built, the product ships, or revenue stabilizes, the system should sustain itself.

It won’t.

In physics, any system drifts toward disorder unless energy is continuously added. Organizations are no different.

Leave a high-performing team alone long enough and it becomes average.
Leave a clean process alone and it turns into bureaucracy.

Toxic culture, declining innovation, and customer churn don’t require failure to occur. They happen automatically when energy stops flowing.

Stability is temporary.

So when leaders ask, “Why is my team losing focus?” they’re misdiagnosing the problem. Focus isn’t self-sustaining. Clarity only exists while it’s enforced. The moment pressure lifts, entropy takes over.

Founders resent the repetition: restating the vision, resetting standards, fixing things that “should already work.” They believe they should be past this phase.

There is no past this.

Maintaining order requires constant energy just to stay where you are. This is the Red Queen Effect: running as fast as you can to remain in the same place.

If your churn is low and your team is aligned, that isn’t luck. It’s active resistance against decay.

But entropy is only half the story.

The second illusion is fairness.

“We built the best product.”
“We worked harder.”
“So why are we losing?”

Because markets are selection mechanisms.

Gravity doesn’t care about intent. 
Step off a ledge and you fall. 
Markets don’t reward effort either. 
Miss product–market fit and you starve.

Many businesses fail because they wait for fairness to validate them. But goodness is not currency.

Integrity matters for meaning.
Survival requires adaptation.

This is the fork.

Rigid businesses try to predict the future.
Antifragile ones design systems that improve under stress.

When disruption hits (recession, scandal, technological shifts), the right question is “How do we bend while others break?”

Leadership, then, is the continuous injection of energy against entropy.

The CEO is not just a manager but a Chief Energy Officer: responsible for replenishing vision, resetting standards, and restoring momentum faster than decay erodes them.

Problems are not interruptions of the work.
They are the work.

If business feels hard, it’s because you’re attempting something unnatural: imposing order on a universe that prefers disorder.

Building truth-aligned influence for Industry Leaders. | Copywriter + Story Strategist

No alternative text description for this image

What if I told you that people fail on LinkedIn because they speak the wrong language to the wrong nervous system?

If you want your content to land across ANY industry without dumbing it down or selling your soul, this is for you. 

The uncomfortable truth? 
Content doesn’t underperform because it’s “not valuable,” but rather underperforms because it ignores CONTEXT. 

Every industry reads through a different survival lens.

Different fears.
Different liabilities.
Different definitions of “credible.”

So instead of rewriting your ideas a hundred times, translate them once PROPERLY.

Use this 3-layer filter before you post anything.

Layer 1: Risk Tolerance

Low-risk industries (finance, healthcare, public sector) are allergic to recklessness.
They reward restraint.

High-risk industries (tech, marketing, startups) metabolize uncertainty faster.
They tolerate speculation, even EXPECT it. 

Same insight, filtered through different risk appetites and delivery expectations.


Layer 2: Proof Standard

Ask yourself what this audience accepts as “truth.”

Some are fine with a strong opinion.
Others want a case vignette.
Some need metrics.
Some need regulated, peer-reviewed, legally defensible evidence.

If your proof standard is lower than their tolerance, you look unserious.
If it’s higher, you look irrelevant.

This is where most “thought leaders” embarrass themselves.


Layer 3: Buying Committee

Are you speaking to a solo decision-maker
or a room full of procurement, compliance, legal, ops, and finance?

Solo buyers respond to clarity and conviction.
Committees respond to alignment and risk mitigation.

If multiple stakeholders need to say yes,
your content must pre-answer objections that aren’t even verbalized yet.

Only AFTER these three filters
do you choose the content shape.

Post.
Essay.
Carousel.
Data breakdown.
Narrative memo.
Quiet authority piece.

This understanding is about us being precise.

Same brain and ideas, yet different translation layer.

That’s how content travels across industries
without losing power (or credibility). 

Just remember:
Great content calibrates judgment before it drives action. Plus, if you look deeper, authenticity is industry-dependent. 

I unpack this framework fully in my newsletter, including industry-specific applications for LinkedIn 2026. Out at 7pm SGT! Subscribe to be the first to read www.storyempowers.com :) You won’t regret it!

[It’s OUT] Read → https://lnkd.in/gFVPe2Uq

Your “wasted” time is your biggest competitive advantage.

I was grabbing coffee with a friend the other day, and we got into a debate about my process.

I told him I spent nearly six hours yesterday doing nothing but reading articles and watching old interviews of a new client.

He looked at me like I was insane.
“Why? You have the transcripts. You can generate captions. Just feed it into an AI, get the summary, and write the post. You’re losing money working this slow.”

On paper, he’s right.
It was inefficient.
But I believe he’s wrong.

Why?
Because of the Peacock’s Tail.

In biology, this is called costly signaling.
A peacock grows a massive, heavy, colorful tail that makes it slower and easier for predators to catch.

It’s literally a handicap.
And that’s the point.

The bird is signaling:
“I am so fit, so capable, and so well-adapted that I can survive even with this absurd waste of energy.”

The social translation is this:
In 2026, efficiency is a cheap signal.

Anyone can generate a “good enough” post in 10 seconds.
Because it costs almost nothing to produce, it carries almost no meaning.

But my waste is not my value.
My JUDGEMENT is.

The time is just the visible cost that makes that judgment legible.

When I spend six hours researching for a two-minute read, I’m not trying to prove that I worked harder.

I’m doing the non-automatable work:
→ Sitting in contradiction
→ Noticing tone, cadence, and subtext
→ Tracking how a person’s ideas evolve across time
→ Separating what sounds clever from what’s strategically useful
→ Building coherence out of chaos

That’s the work the transcript, summary, and prompt don’t do.

The reason my ghostwriting works isn’t because I’m a better typist than a bot.

It’s because I’m willing to sit in ambiguity long enough to develop taste, framing, and strategic intent before turning anything into output.

That slowness is a visible evidence of judgment.

Yes, in some environments, speed is the signal.
In operations, logistics, engineering, and execution-heavy roles, efficiency still means competence.

But in saturated attention markets, speed is free.

Everyone is fast, optimized, and shipping.

So speed no longer signals quality, but sameness.

The real bottleneck now is sense-making,
Which takes time because taste, synthesis, and strategic clarity don’t compress cleanly.

Tools will keep getting better.
Summaries will get sharper.
Nuance will get cheaper.

Time is just the receipt.
So no, my waste is not my value.
My willingness to do non-automatable thinking is.

Shortcuts signal that you’re using the same tools as everyone else.

If you want to build authority and stand out:
→ Do the research that feels unnecessary
→ Sit with the messy ideas longer than is comfortable
→ Write the story that feels too personal to publish
→ Edit the video until it feels like art, not content

Judgment is the luxury. 

The time you “waste” is just how you show them you can afford it.

I started this year with a 72-hour fast and it turned into an expensive life & business lesson.

If you use resets to sharpen your thinking, this is for you.

New year.
Empty stomach.
High ambition.

By the second day, I was staring at a spreadsheet with an unsettling level of confidence.

3 looked like 8.
1 looked like 11.
Silence looked like market validation.

My mind said:
“This is alignment.”

What made that moment dangerous wasn’t the fast.
It was WHEN I decided the numbers meant something.

Because when you strip away stimulation (food, routine, noise), the mind become hungry for coherence.

It wants the story to close.

In business, this shows up during:
→  resets
→  pivots
→  early traction reads
→  investor silence
→  post-burnout “clarity”

Ambiguity feels unsafe.
Neutral data feels like rejection.
Waiting feels like failure.

So the brain does what it’s designed to do:
it manufactures meaning to restore control.

This is where many smart decisions quietly break.

Meaning arrives BEFORE evidence.
Certainty shows up BEFORE understanding.

It looks sophisticated from the cover. 

Suddenly:
→ A small sample becomes a growth signal
→ Silence becomes strategy
→ Fatigue becomes transformation
→ Desire becomes insight

None of this is foolish.
It’s deeply human.

January is full of intelligent operators making beautiful mistakes because they confuse emotional intensity with truth.

The deeper lesson for me?
It was about timing interpretation.

Good judgment isn’t just WHAT you read from a signal,  it’s WHEN you allow yourself to read it.

Clarity that appears at the peak of deprivation, urgency, or excitement is usually unstable.

Real clarity survives three tests:

→ Time
→ Repetition
→ Boredom

If an idea still makes sense:
→ when your body is regulated
→ when the excitement has worn off
→ when you’re no longer trying to prove anything
that’s information you can trust.

This is why mature operators don’t rush conclusions during resets.

They reset the body first.
Then they wait.

They let numbers settle.
They let emotions normalize.
They let patterns repeat without narration.

Only then do they decide.

That restraint is a business skill.

A real reset doesn’t make everything feel meaningful.

It makes you harder to impress, harder to rush, and harder to fool, especially by yourself.

P.S. What decision in your business would benefit from waiting for one more repetition before you call it “clear”?

In 2025, I took four long breaks from LinkedIn, each lasting 4–6 weeks, and it was one of the best decisions I made all year.

Here’s why.

Stepping away gave me my mind back.

1/ I stopped outsourcing my judgment

LinkedIn isn’t neutral.
It quietly trains you to think impressively instead of clearly.

When you’re inside it every day:
→ You shape ideas around what gets applause
→ You compress thoughts before they’re ready
→ You confuse engagement with truth

Before the breaks, I’d catch myself editing ideas while thinking them.

I’d discard lines of thought because they wouldn’t land.

After a few weeks offline, that reflex disappeared.

My thoughts no longer needed an audience to proceed. I regained epistemic sovereignty.

This mattered even more because I’m also writing for my clients. 

When you write on behalf of others, the pressure to perform compounds.
You’re not just translating ideas, you’re pre-optimizing someone else’s voice for reaction.

If you’re always plugged in, that performance logic leaks upstream.
You start shaping their thinking before it’s finished.
Eventually, you do the same to your own.

Distance breaks that loop.

2/ I broke the feedback–identity loop

On LinkedIn, identity slowly bends toward reaction:
→ “This performed well → I should do more of this”
→ “This didn’t → maybe I’m off”

As a writer, I feel this secondhand, but constantly: screenshots, metrics, “what landed,” “what didn’t.”

During the breaks, there was nothing to metabolize of my own.

My nervous system downshifted.

I stopped adjusting who I was becoming based on what traveled farthest. I deconditioned.

3/ I rebuilt my relationship with creation

I started thinking to understand again

I wrote pages no client would ever see.
I followed ideas past usefulness.
I let thoughts stay unshaped longer.

That changed:
→ what I noticed
→ what I rejected
→ what I was willing to stand behind

My question shifted, “Will this work?” → “Is this true?”

That’s why the breaks mattered.

Because constant presence, especially when you think for others, was costing me something more valuable than reach:

MY ORIGINAL SIGNAL. 

Once you feel the difference between thinking for an audience and thinking for yourself, you don’t want to be always-on again.

“I’m serving a niche market. What’s the easiest way to grow my LinkedIn & get clients?”

is one of the most common questions I hear on LinkedIn calls, and, in my experience, it’s a red flag.

Why?

Because in a niche market, “easy growth” is often a leading indicator that you’re about to sabotage your business model.

I’m not trying to be mean or provocative.
I say this as someone who spent the past year taking over multiple accounts that chased shortcuts first and paid for it later.

Here are three mechanisms that explain why.

1/ The Sorting Mechanism (Platform Reality)

The algorithm is a pattern-matching engine.

It rewards categorizability.
→ Repetition signals relevance.
→ Too much novelty signals confusion.

The fastest way to grow a niche account is not having more ideas.
It’s having fewer ideas, repeated until both the platform and the market can label you instantly.

If a stranger can’t finish this sentence, your growth is leaking:
“Follow them if you specifically need help with ____.”


2/ The Conversion Mechanism (Business Reality)

Growth without commercial intent creates zombie audiences.

High numbers.
Zero pulse.

Every post you write is doing one of two things:
→ Strengthening a buying decision
→ Or diluting it

Niche brands scale by pre-selling the same specific problem again and again.


3/ The Debt Mechanism (Cost Reality)

Shortcuts don’t remove work.
They DEFER it with interest.

When you hack growth without a solid foundation, you accumulate brand debt:
→ An audience you have to constantly re-educate
→ Leads that require excessive convincing
→ Sales that depend on volume instead of reputation

The bill always comes due.
Usually as a painful rebrand one or two years later.


Believe it or not,
if you serve a niche market, your goal isn’t virality.

It’s unmistakable signal.

One problem.
One buyer.
One dominant message.

Because in niche markets,
efficiency beats reach.

P.S. If shortcuts actually worked, everyone would take them. The fact that they don’t is the lesson. Don’t you think so?

P.P.S. If you serve a niche and already have traction, DM me the one problem you want to dominate. If it’s a fit, I’ll share how I’d think about strengthening your position.

You’re not being evaluated online the way you think you are.

Sometimes you’re being evaluated for the same competence through a completely different lens.

That lens decides whether your confidence reads as leadership or “tone.”

Whether your clarity reads as expertise or “attitude.”

Whether your boundaries read as professionalism or “coldness.”

Once you see that lens, you stop trying to “improve your content” in the wrong direction.

You start designing authority like a strategist:
→  signal the right proof, at the right moment
→  reduce misinterpretation
→  build trust without shrinking
→  protect your energy from bad-faith engagement

I mapped the patterns I keep observing, how authority gets granted online, and why the playbook often can’t be identical.

If you’re building a serious brand, this will change how you write, how you position, and what you stop explaining.

Read in full ↓

Online Authority isn’t Gender-Neutral

I spoke to a very interesting lady earlier today.
She hired a virtual assistant to apply for jobs on her behalf.

I couldn’t stop thinking about it.

Why? because of what it reveals about how she thinks.

She didn’t treat job applications as a moral ritual you must personally suffer through,  rather she treated it as a mechanical process that exists to create access.

She separated the admin work from the actual outcome.

The outcome was exposure to better rooms, higher-paying roles, and different timelines.

So she paid to buy surface area in opportunity space.

To me, she’s taking it further than job hunting,  she’s option buying.

She invested money into increasing the probability that a better version of her life would happen.

That’s why I find her interesting.

Because most people only invest in things that already have proof.

She invested in a future version of herself that doesn’t exist yet, and funded the logistics needed to get there.

She treated her future self like a startup and financed its distribution channel.

She decided her time and nervous system were worth more than the friction of rejection cycles and administrative grind.

She refused unnecessary suffering.

What actually caught my attention wasn’t the tactic, but the internal permission behind it.

To hire someone to apply for you requires a specific type of ego:
1. You must believe your time is literally too valuable for data entry, so that energy is better spent on strategy and preparation.

2. You must believe you are a product worth marketing aggressively, ensuring you are ready for the right opportunity when it comes.

It’s the systems-level thinking to treat life as a portfolio.

The willingness to architect probability instead of waiting for luck.
That’s a different operating system.

It made me realize why this story stayed with me.

I’m not impressed by her outsourcing job applications.

But super impressed by the identity that sees leverage before effort, structure before struggle, and outcomes before rituals.

She was funding her future.
That’s why I think she’s interesting.

Because you don’t see that many people who are willing to invest in a better timeline.

taplio

The Battle

Jeff Ross

Pearling Lim

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreJeff Ross's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScorePearling Lim's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Jeff Ross

Pearling Lim

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);}Jeff Ross's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScorePearling Lim's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreJeff Ross's LinkedIn Performance