CEO at SAS | Creating Moonshots

I help founders and organisations navigate moonshot-scale ambitions using a methodology derived from NASA mission design.Most strategies fail because they confuse ambition with readiness. 

Leaders commit time, money, and reputation before they have learned what actually needs to be true. I help them work out what must be learned, so they don't spend years executing the wrong thing.

I spent 25 years building and scaling businesses, mentoring 100+ university spinouts (pre-spinout and many post-spinout) across Oxford, England, and Scotland, and working as commercial lead inside the complexity of deep-tech ventures. I am not just an advisor who parachutes in. I am an entrepreneur who's built the thing.

I am currently leading the Oxford Moonshot Programme, which launched in January 2026 with 18 deep-tech founders. I am also writing a book on how big ideas become reality, using case studies from Deeptech, the Eden Project to SpaceX.

When I work with schools or boardrooms, I bring authentic Apollo mission artifacts, including a lunar module contact light and an SCE to AUX switch, as proof that this methodology is not borrowed. It is rebuilt from the best framework humanity has for achieving the impossible under extreme uncertainty.

This is for Deep-tech founders, academic leaders, CEOs, and institutions with serious capability but foggy direction.

This is not for early-stage founders looking for tips, people shopping for "support," or those wanting validation rather than challenge. If you want navigation clarity, let’s talk.

Mark Zwinderman

Universities are sitting on unrealised value in spinout equity. Very little of it converts to real cash for the universities. How do we change that? By reducing complexity.

The value to cash gap is not about the quality of the science, or the quality of the support. The past ten years have seen a tremendous development in University ecosystem support.

The issue is complexity. Building a business for the first time is genuinely hard, and the distance between world-class research and commercial reality can feel vast for founders who never made that crossing before.

The TTOs and programmes doing the best work understand this. But even the strongest institutional support has limits when founders lack a clear map for the journey itself.

What moves the needle is reducing the complexity of business building for people who have not done this before, and building real bridges of understanding between the science and the commercial world it needs to enter.

That's the work I do. Tested with deep tech founders in Scotland, England and now at the Oxford Moonshot, and designed to sit alongside what institutions are already doing well.

If you are responsible for spinout outcomes and you're thinking about how to close the gap between paper value and real returns, I would welcome a conversation.

International Women's Day. Let's talk about the number that won't move.
For more than a decade, investment into female-led ventures has been stuck at around 2%.

Every year, the same speeches. Every year, more pledges, more programmes, more panels. The number does not move.
Because we keep trying to fix behaviour inside a broken process. Nobody is fixing the process.

The conventional investment sequence runs like this:
Warm introduction → Pitch performance → Pattern matching → Fundamentals

Steps one to three filter for familiarity before the opportunity is ever properly assessed.
A founder who has spent five years solving a hard technical problem in a university lab is not optimised for that sequence. By the time you get to the substance, the decision is largely already made.

This is not a bias problem. It is a design flaw.

The 2% is not just a funding gap. It is an innovation gap.

Every year, technologies that would have reached patients, customers, and communities are lost, not because they weren't good enough, but because the process that evaluates them was designed to find the familiar, not the best.

Healthcare solutions. Climate technologies. New materials. Food security. Education. The hardest problems, in the sectors that matter most, disproportionately abandoned at the point of investment.

Meanwhile, capital flows to propositions that pattern-match. We are all paying the price for this. Every one of us.

The research is unambiguous. When opportunity is assessed before identity, female-led ventures are selected at rates close to parity.

The gap does not exist at the level of quality. It exists at the level of sequence.

So fix the sequence.
Invert it. Assess the technology, the market, and the milestones first. Then make the introduction. Then meet the founder.
The founder still wins or loses on merit. They just reach the room having already established that the opportunity is serious, rather than having to prove the technology, the market, and their own credibility simultaneously in a 20-minute pitch to people who have never encountered their sector.

We call it the Structured Investment Protocol.
No new money required. No new fund. No new procurement.

Pilot it through existing co-investment infrastructure. Two years. One metric: does the percentage move?

If it does, and the evidence says it will, you have a replicable model.

Scotland becomes the proof of concept for the UK. The UK for Europe.

This is not a call for more awareness. It is a call for a Moonshot.

Mercury has flown, the research proves the mechanism works.
It is time for Gemini, build the protocol, pilot it, publish the results.

Happy International Women's Day. Now let's move the number.

I architect Moonshot programmes for leaders, enterprises, and regions

No alternative text description for this image

£17 billion. That is the annual economic reward sitting on the table for Scotland if women-led businesses achieved parity with male-led ones.

Women now start 54% of all new businesses in Scotland. The talent is there. The ambition is there. The ideas are there.

More women are starting. Fewer are surviving. The post-startup attrition rate is 61%.

We need to talk about Sequence.

The conventional investment process runs mostly like this:

Warm introduction → Pitch performance → Pattern matching → Fundamentals

Steps one to three filter for familiarity before the opportunity is ever properly assessed. By the time you get to the substance, the decision is largely already made, on non-fundamental grounds.

Fix the sequence and you recover the value.

This is a call for a Moonshot.

We don't need another programme. Not another pledge. Not more unconscious bias training. They accept the existing architecture and ask under-represented founders to perform better within it.

A structural intervention. A redesign of the investment process itself.

Mercury has already flown.

The research is unambiguous. When opportunity is assessed before identity, female-led ventures are selected at close to parity rates. The mechanism works. 

It is time for Gemini.

Build the Structured Investment Protocol (SIP). A practical framework that puts technical and commercial assessment first, before the warm introduction, before the pitch performance, before the pattern matching.

Pilot it with three investor partners through Scottish Enterprise's existing co-investment fund.

No new money. No new vehicle. No new procurement. Start now.

Run this for two years with one metric: does the percentage of capital reaching female-led ventures move?

If it does (and it will) Gemini is done. Apollo begins.

Apollo rolls it out across the full SE co-investment programme.

Not a pilot. Not a best practice recommendation.

A condition of participation.

Every investor operating with SE co-investment support applies SIP. Results published annually across the full programme. That dataset, the first of its kind in the UK, becomes the evidence base for national adoption.

Scotland becomes the proof of concept for the UK.

The infrastructure exists.

The evidence exists.

What is needed now is the decision to use them.

£17 billion is waiting to be unlocked.

If you are working on any part of this, as an investor, a university commercialisation professional, a policy maker, or a founder who has lived the sequence problem, I'd like to hear from you.

Full breakdown of the three-stage Moonshot plan (Mercury, Gemini, Apollo) on Substack. Link in comments.

Scottish Enterprise Adrian Gillespie

There is no greater mission nor a more important space in which we have to succeed.

Climate change is the big one.

On the 26 March in Edinburgh it is the Venture Cafe that will bring together the talent working to address the No 1 issue.

I’ll be there with the Moonshot Coffee Wall. A new way to connect those with a mission to those who can help.

Because often all it takes is the right introduction, the right conversation over a coffee, and the next level is unlocked. The path ahead a bit clearer.

Register now: 

https://lnkd.in/eF3ZNJjD

Venture Café Edinburgh

The very real launch of Moonshot Factory at B4 at amazing Rhodes House in Oxford.

A group of ambitious B4 members coming together to jointly work out their path to impact and develop their Moonshot clarity over the next six months.

Wonderful to work with Richard Rosser and his B4 folks.

What a morning 🙂

The UK's push to increase university spinouts makes perfect sense. That does bring with it structural risk, which is easy to miss.

World-class research. Deep intellectual capital.

So, the drive to increase spinout volume is understandable. When public funding rewards throughput, institutions will optimise for throughput.

But volume changes the structural risk profile.

When spinout numbers increase, three quiet shifts tend to occur.

Ambition thresholds become less explicit. Support resources spread more thinly. Governance conversations get deferred.

Individually, each one doesn’t sound that dramatic. Collectively, they will create fragility.

The danger is we create more structurally underpowered spinouts. Spinouts launched without clear 5–10 year ambition definition, explicit scale expectations, stage-gated progression discipline, early governance alignment, or deliberate capability mapping.

Volume can unintentionally dilute scale probability.

And when fragility surfaces later, stalled growth, misaligned boards, difficult fundraising, it's often attributed to "market conditions" or "founder capability."

In reality, the weakness was architectural.

Most universities already have strong components. TTOs, incubators, commercial champions, proof-of-concept funding, investor networks. What's often missing isn't capabilit, but integration.

Volume is a metric. Scale is impact.
If we are serious about both, structural coherence becomes more important as numbers increase.

I have been working on a framework that maps and strengthens spinout pathways under volume-driven policy, without replacing what already exists.

More on that soon.

80,000 hours.

That's roughly what the average professional career contains. 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, 40 years.

I was reading The Precipice by Toby Ord over the past weeks. Great book. Go find it.

Most of us spend the first 20,000 figuring out what we're supposed to want. The next 20,000 optimising for it. And somewhere around hour 40,000, if we're honest, a quieter question starts to nag us.

Is this trajectory actually mine?

Not the CV version. Not the dinner party answer. The real one.

I spent 25 years building businesses and the last decade working with founders at Oxford and in Scotland, and beyond on exactly this question, applied to their ventures. The methodology works. And I have been watching it work on something else entirely. 

The people themselves.

Something is in the works. A structured programme for senior professionals ready to stop optimising the wrong destination and define the biggest true thing they could do with their remaining 40,000 hours.

More soon. If the question is already in your head, drop me a message.

#Career #Moonshot #Leadership #Purpose

The killer quote:

“No account of what changed, what improved, what failed, and what was learned. A document genuinely interested in accountability would benchmark itself against its own history. This one arrives each year as if the previous one never existed.”

That is the key thing here for me. What went well? What did you improve? How did the founders see this?

£42M is a lot of cash. Any decent Moonshot is achieved by transparency and a learning forward methodology. 

What we could do with £42M…

Open article: Scotland's tech ambition and the numbers that won't add up by open.substack.com

Scotland's tech ambition and the numbers that won't add up

A quick weekend experiment.

If you are been thinking about changing something in your life or business, try this today.

Nothing dramatic.
No major announcements.
Just 30 minutes and a pen.

Go to a café or somewhere quiet and write down the answers to three questions.

1. If nothing really changes, where will I be in 5 years?

Your role.
Your income.
Your lifestyle.
Your energy levels.

Just the honest and likely continuation of the path you are on.

2. What else could I do?

Different industry.
Start something.
Advisory work.
Move country.
Build a portfolio career.
Scale a business properly.

Write down every realistic option that comes to mind.

3. What would I do if I didn’t care what anyone thought?

No reputation worries.
No expectations.
No “but people like me don’t do that”.

Just write the honest answer.

Something interesting often happens at this point.

People realise their current life wasn’t designed.

It mostly emerged from momentum and expectations.

And there may be other trajectories available.

You don’t need to change everything this weekend.

But clarity often begins with coffee, a pen, and thirty minutes of honesty.

Moonshot: Trajectory. The link is in the comments. Sign up to the wait list to say "Maybe this is something I want to explore"

We are being encouraged to increase spinout volume.

Volume is okay. More companies could mean more jobs created and more value created. Could.

Fragmentation is an issue.

Most universities already have:

– Incubators
– Commercialisation teams
– Mentor networks
– Investment readiness support
– Proof-of-concept funding

Individually, these are strong.

But spinouts tend to fracture later and in three predictable places:

Ambition Drift (Navigation in the Moonshot method)
The mission was never defined precisely enough. So every opportunity feels equally valid.

Capability Mismatch (Propulsion)
Founders optimise for immediate traction, not staged capability build.

Governance Lag (Life Support)
Decision rights, equity clarity and board composition are addressed reactively. Problems surface later. Academic control holds back decision making.

None of this is a capability problem.

This is a sequencing problem.

When Navigation, Propulsion and Life Support aren’t intentionally aligned, existing support structures don’t reinforce each other and they operate in parallel.

The opportunity is not to add more programmes.

It is to architect what’s already there so ambition, capability and governance mature in sequence.

Volume with coherence increases resilience.

We can create spinouts that succeed if we get the architecture right.

Books then.

I read an article in December on the beauty of reading. Imagine if you read books in different genres, essays, long form journalism, new writers, that book you would not normally pick up and buy, the type of book you would not normally read. 

How many new ideas you would be exposed to. New language. Analogies. Metaphors. Reasoning. Beauty.

Imagine if you stopped consuming news and social media.

Well, I did and do.

Just finished book 41 since Christmas. 

Not to brag. For some weird reason I read quickly. Always have. Not claiming greatness.

So much better to be absorbed by a book to consuming the 24 hour news cycle.

This might be the best one yet. Go pick it up.

The idea isn't the hard part.
Saying it out loud is.

Most big ambitions die quietly, not from lack of effort, but from lack of permission. Permission to be taken seriously. Permission to be a little bit crazy.

The Moonshot Coffee Wall gives you that permission.

Write down your moonshot. Put it on the wall. What you're building, what you need, who you need to find.

That's it. No stage. No slides. Just your idea, in your handwriting, in a room full of people who showed up because they have one too. 

Someone will stop. Someone will read it. Someone will say "me too."
Come find your people.

Register for the next Venture Cafe Edinburgh: https://lnkd.in/eF3ZNJjD

Venture Café Edinburgh March 26. Launch of the #MoonshotCoffeeWall
by The Moonshot Factory 

#Scotland #Innovation

How do you tell your story?
I was at the The James Hutton Institute in Dundee yesterday to satisfy the Environmental engineer in my head. It all combined quite nicely with Moonshots.

It's a wonderful place and with some great people. I loved the micro plastics removal technology. A future partner of SAS Environmental Services Ltd? I hope so.

Some excellent discussions around how we get Scotland's innovation to have an impact at home and abroad.

My take then.

1. More female led businesses funded. The Structured Investment Protocol will lower the hurdle for women looking to raise money. 

2. The system must stop measuring success only. All the public funding for innovation requires, if not demands, success numbers. Founders need to fail, stop, move on, recombine, learn. Failure must be a required element of funding.

3. Get to London. Or, at least, get out of Scotland. There is money. Go to London. Spend a week meeting investors.

Thanks to Rachel Clark and Zachary Sorrells for the invite. They are amazing at what they do. 

Zach converted the 54 slide PPT on microemulsion technology, interfacial surface tension, and molecular structure we had for SAS into a single slide with this image here. In fairness, he suggested no slides, 17 years ago 😃. 

We kept just this one slide as it tells the story of what SAS does for our customers. We take oil waste and we separate it.

Today is Men's Day across much of Eastern Europe.

Not just Father's Day. Not just for heroes. For all of them.

The man who shows up without being asked. The one who listens more than he speaks. The friend who drives three hours and never mentions it again. The brother who makes the call when things get hard. The son who's quietly becoming someone you're proud of.

Today, think about the men in your life who carry things without complaint, who show up, and who make the people around them feel steadier just by being there.

And let them know. A message. A call. A drink raised in their direction.

It’s a happy day. And I always liked how it it is for all men, not just Father’s Day. Sons, brothers, friends, uncles, dads, husbands, partners.

Have a toast. Have a great day.

Elon Musk says he approaches everything from first principles.

Most people nod along. But what does that actually mean in practice?

First principles thinking is a form of intellectual demolition. You strip away every assumption, every analogy, every "this is how it's always been done", until you hit bedrock. 

The irreducible truths. Then, and only then, do you build back up.

SpaceX asked "what is a rocket, fundamentally, made of?" The answer changed everything.

The reason most deep tech breakthroughs never reach the world is not a lack of funding. It is not a lack of talent. The reason is that the entire system surrounding the founder is built on assumptions that were never questioned. 

Assume the research is enough. Assume IP protection comes first. Assume a business plan is the bridge between lab and market. Assume equity ownership is the most valuable.

Strip those away and you are left with a harder, more honest truth. This is a brilliant founder with a world-changing idea is standing at the start of a mission with the wrong navigation system, insufficient propulsion, and life support that was never designed for the journey ahead.

They have a map, but it's a road map. And you can't navigate an ocean with a road map.

They have momentum, but it's pointed in the wrong direction, or not nearly powerful enough to escape gravity.

They have support, but it was built for the academic environment they're leaving, not the commercial one they're entering.

That's not a funding problem. That's a systems problem. And systems problems require first principles solutions.

If you are a Scotland based business or founder I can not urge you strong enough to register on GlobalScots.

The global network of people happy to help, talk, guide, or in some way just assist you is one of the most valuable resources I have used over the years.

Register. It's free. Free! What is free these days? Then, search by sector, geography, etc.

When you register on the GlobalScot platform, you can connect with experts from around the world 🌏

There are over 1,200 GlobalScots across 68 countries around the globe, and they are all willing to help you boost your business 📈

So if you're looking for expert advice, global connections, and fresh perspectives, GlobalScot is here to help. 

Sign up today ➡️ https://ow.ly/JCJx50YiaJh

#GlobalScot #Business

David Equi carousel.pdf

Women's day is over for another year. That means 364 days to not worry about all that stuff. Right?

We keep going. The world is full of talent and the world is full of problems needing solving. We all have a stake in the success of half the world population...

AI then. How do we apply AI in creating a more equal investment climate?

Building on the Structured Investment Protocol (more on my Substack) that Scottish Enterprise should trial. 

Blind the evaluation process where humans can't. The most immediate application is using AI to strip identifying information from initial pitch materials and score them on business fundamentals. The first gate. An AI system that ingests a pitch deck, anonymises it, and scores it against a structured rubric (market size, unit economics, defensibility, team capability framed as skills not pedigree) would force every deal that clears the threshold into a human meeting on merit. The critical design choice is that the AI doesn't make the investment decision. It controls what gets through to the humans. That's where the current bias sits. In who gets the meeting.

Analyse the question bias in real time. That Harvard research showing investors ask men promotion questions and women prevention questions. AI can monitor pitch meetings (with consent) and flag the pattern live. Imagine a dashboard that sits alongside a Zoom call and shows the investment committee in real time: "You asked three prevention-framed questions in a row. You asked the previous male founder zero." People change behaviour when they can see it. This could be deployed in any accelerator demo day or VC partner meeting tomorrow.

Model the counterfactual portfolio. I wonder if you take the last ten years of UK VC deployment data and use AI to build a model. Then ask if the same capital had been deployed gender-blind based on business fundamentals alone, what would the portfolio returns look like? 

There's evidence that female-founded companies deliver better returns per pound invested. An AI model that can demonstrate, with real UK fund data, that gender bias isn't just unfair but is actively damaging LP returns would change the conversation. I would hope. 

AI trained on historical data will replicate historical bias unless we are deliberate about the training set and evaluation criteria. If we train a "good founder" model on ten years of UK VC-backed companies, we will get a model that thinks good founders look like the people who already got funded, which is overwhelmingly male. 

The design principle has to be that AI evaluates the business, not the founder's resemblance to previously funded founders. That's a fundamental architectural choice, not a fine-tuning problem.

Who will step forward?

More on my substack

Open article: The 2% Moonshot by open.substack.com

The Moonshot Coffee Wall is coming soon.

Keep your eyes out at an event near you 😀 

A new way to connect people with great ideas to people who can help.

A Moonshot passes four tests. Number four is where people really struggle. 

1. Is it Specific? There is no way two people could understand the goal differently.

2. Is it Time-bound? A defined horizon. Not "one day", not eventually.

3. Is the Scaling explicit? Not incremental improvement. That's a milestone.

4. Is it Costly? There are trade-offs. Something meaningful must change.

Do you have a Moonshot?

There is an architecture that enables the successful creation and growth of spinout companies.

Not a tool. Not a stage-specific programme. A spine that runs from the first definition of a mission all the way to scale, and holds under pressure at every point in between.

I spent years developing it and using it. I call it the Moonshot Architecture.

It applies at pre-spinout. When you're defining the mission before the company exists. It applies post-spinout, when you need to sequence capability before the gaps become crises. It applies at scale-up, when growth pressure tests whether the original mission still holds.

And it applies to the people designing the pathways. TTOs, commercialisation teams, programme leaders asking whether their support arrives at the right moment, in the right order.

This year I will be running a small number of pilot workshops at universities. Three hours. Mixed cohorts, pre-spinout, post-spinout, scale-up in the same room. That mix is deliberate. Seeing the same architecture hold across all three stages is the point.

If you're leading a deep tech programme, running a TTO, or building a commercialisation pathway, then I'd like to bring this to you.

DM me or drop a comment below.

Employee Engagement Specialist | Organizational Change Coach | Empowering Organizations to build a competency for ongoing change | Lean-Agile implementation expert with 30+ Years of Innovation | SPCT | Candidate ILM

Your best people aren't going to tell you they're leaving. They're just going to leave.
By the time someone hands in their notice, the decision was made months ago. A promotion path that went nowhere. A manager who stopped listening. A conversation that never happened.

Most companies find out too late. Then they pay 4x what they thought turnover costs when you add the productivity loss, the project delays, the knowledge walking out the door, and the team stretched thin covering the gap.

I spent 20 years implementing transformation programs at Fortune 500 companies. Watched them obsess over efficiency while bleeding millions in preventable departures they never saw coming.

I co-authored "The Trillion Dollar Problem" to document what most executives miss. Then I co-founded 
Clover ERA to fix it.

Clover ERA shows you which teams are about to break. Before the resignations start.

Daily anonymous check-ins surface what's building beneath the surface. Managers see the patterns and get specific prompts to act. You intervene while there's still time.

We don't prevent every departure. We prevent the ones that didn't have to happen. The ones where someone was waiting for a conversation that never came.

Preventing one departure costs a fraction of replacing them.
If you're losing people you didn't see coming, let's talk.

📅 Schedule Your Free Turnover Analysis: https://outlook.office.com/book/TurnoverAnalysis@cloverera.com/?ismsaljsauthenabled
🔍 Or take the free Team Health Assessment: https://cloverera.com/team-health

Clive Hays

A manager told me she changed one question in her 1:1s. Nothing else. 
It saved $680K.

She'd been running the same format for years. How's the project going. Any blockers. Anything you need from me.

Good questions. Safe questions. She got the same answers every week.

I asked what made her change.

"I lost two people in four months. Both said everything was fine the week before they resigned. I realised I was asking questions they could answer without telling me anything."

So she replaced all of it with one line: "What would you change if you knew I'd actually do it?"

First time she asked, she got silence. Second time, one of her engineers said the deployment process had been broken for a year and everyone had given up mentioning it.

She fixed it in a week. A week. The thing that had been draining her team for twelve months took five days once someone actually asked.

Over the next quarter, three people who had been quietly disengaging came back. Not because of a program. Not because of a survey. Because one question told them someone was finally listening and would actually do something about it.

Your 1:1s are full of questions your team can answer on autopilot. One of those questions could be replaced tomorrow morning.

What would happen if you asked your team something they didn't have a safe answer for?

I help CEOs/CFOs stop pre-automation turnover bleeding competitive advantage before AI works

70% of her team disappeared in 10 minutes. 
Block offered her a 90% raise to stay. 
She quit the next day.

She was a data scientist at Cash App. The morning after the layoff, she looked around. The only people left on her immediate team were her and a new hire who'd started three days earlier.

The CEO posted about it on X like a product announcement. The stock jumped over 20%. Analysts called it efficient.

She called it something else. She said she felt immense dread and survivor's guilt. She said a company that can snap away half its people doesn't need two weeks notice from her either.

Here's what the CEO saw: a leaner company, rising stock, proof the market rewards speed.

Here's what she saw: empty Slack channels, a team that no longer exists, and a raise that felt like hush money.

74% of HR leaders say morale takes 4 to 12 months to recover after a layoff. Most CEOs expect it done in 3 months. That gap is where your best people quietly update their CVs.

Block still has 6,000 employees. Nobody is asking how their managers are holding those fractured teams together right now. Nobody is measuring what those managers can see and what they're missing.

The next layoff at Block won't come from the CEO. 
It'll come from the people who stayed.

How many of your surviving managers know what their team is actually feeling this week?

A VP of HR showed me her 2025 exit data last month.
"$3.1M in replacement costs. But we know exactly why they left."

I asked if she'd spoken to any of them since.

Three. All friends.

What they told her over coffee wasn't on any exit interview. Their manager had gone quiet months before the resignation. Promises made about progression. No follow-through. One of them had raised the same concern four times. The last time, she stopped raising it.

"Why didn't they say that in the interview?" she asked.

Because they needed the reference.

Nobody tells the truth in an exit interview. The real reasons get told to friends, to recruiters, to the next company's hiring manager. Not to the person who controls the final paycheck and the reference call.

Exit interviews don't tell you why people left. They tell you what people were willing to say.

Who on your team has a version of events they'd never put on paper?

A VP of HR showed me her 2025 exit data last month. Forty-seven departures. $3.1M in replacement costs. Every single one with a completed exit intervi

Open article: The $3.1M Lie Nobody Talks About by Clive Hays • 4 min read

A Head of Product told me her senior PM left for a competitor last month. Zero warning. "Probably cost us $180K," she said. I ran the numbers. $340K. 

I asked if the PM had shown any signs. "None. We talked every Friday. She told me everything." I pulled the 1:1 notes from the last four months. 

In August, the PM asked to lead the enterprise rollout. Her manager said the timing wasn't right. 

In September, she asked again. Same answer. 

In October, she stopped asking. She also stopped challenging priorities in sprint planning. 

Stopped sending those long Friday recap emails her manager used to joke took ten minutes to read. Her manager noticed. "I figured she was finally learning to pick her battles." 

That's not what was happening. She'd started interviewing in October. 

The signals were there for 90 days. 

Her manager saw every one of them. 

She just filed them under "growth" instead of "gone." 

What did someone on your team stop doing that you filed under progress?

A CEO told me he works 65 hours a week.
Said it like a badge of honour.
I asked him a simple question.

"How many of those fires started because a manager didn't see it coming?"

He went quiet. Started counting on his fingers.

The resignation in March that "came out of nowhere." The team conflict in April that took three weeks to untangle. The project that blew up in May because nobody flagged the morale problem.

He stopped at seven.

Seven fires in five months. All traceable to managers who didn't know what was happening on their own teams.

Here's what nobody talks about.

Only 37% of managers received any training when they were promoted.

The CEO working 65 hours isn't more dedicated than the one who leaves at 5pm.

They just have managers who are flying blind.

How many hours are you working because your managers can't see what's coming?

A CFO told me last month they lost $4.2M to turnover last year. I asked what they were doing about it.

"We have someone for that. Talk to HR."

I did. The Head of People showed me their budget. $340K. Annual surveys. A recognition platform with 11% adoption. Quarterly pulse checks that leadership reads once then files.

I asked if she had the authority to change comp bands when someone's underpaid. No.

If she could restructure teams when a manager's underwater. No.

If she could override a promotion decision when someone's been passed over twice. No.

"So what CAN you do?"

"I can measure how people feel about the things I can't change."

That's the job you gave her. Measure the bleeding. Report the numbers. Watch the best people leave. Then get blamed when the exit interview explains exactly what you weren't allowed to fix.

The CEO handed a $4M problem to someone with a $340K budget and no authority to touch the levers that actually matter. Manager behavior. Workload. Promotion paths. Comp decisions. All of those roll up to operations. None of them roll up to HR.

Then leadership acts shocked when turnover stays high.

You didn't delegate the problem. You just made sure nobody with power was accountable for solving it.

Turnover costs 4x what you're tracking. It's not an HR problem. It's a P&L problem. And the person who owns the P&L just sent me to someone who can't fix it.

Which executive on your leadership team can tell you, right now, what turnover actually cost you last year? Not the rate. The cost.

A CEO asked me last week why his VP of Product resigned. "Zero warning," he said. "Probably cost us $80K to replace her." I ran the math. 
$340K.

"Did her behavior change in the weeks before?"

"Actually... yeah. She got quieter in leadership meetings. Stopped pushing back on roadmap decisions. I figured the town hall aligned her. That she finally understood the bigger picture."

"What did you say at the town hall?"

"The usual. Company update. Market conditions. Mentioned we're exploring AI efficiency gains for 2026."

"When did she resign?"

"Six weeks later."

I talked to her before she left.

"What made you start looking?"

"The town hall. He said we're exploring AI efficiency gains. I heard: we're exploring whether we still need you."

"Did you ask him what he meant?"

"What was I supposed to say? 'Are you planning to replace me with AI?' That makes me sound paranoid. Or threatened. Either way, I lose."

I asked the CEO if he'd thought about how that comment would land.

"I was trying to be transparent. Show we're thinking ahead. I thought it would build confidence that we're not going to get disrupted."

Two weeks after she left, his Head of Engineering resigned. Then a senior designer.

Three people. $890K in replacement costs.

He was trying to show the company he's preparing for the future.

They heard: prepare to be replaced.

What did you say about AI in the last 60 days that your best people are still thinking about?

Block cut 4,000 people. Stock jumped 20%. Meta is planning to cut 15,000. Stock jumped 3%. Nobody is asking what happens next.

Here's what happens next.

The managers who survived those cuts were already undertrained. 82% of managers in the UK get promoted with zero formal training. That number is no better in the US. They were accidental managers before the layoffs. Now they're accidental managers holding fractured teams together with fewer people, more work, and no visibility into how their team is actually doing.

The CEO is watching the stock price. The CFO is modelling the savings. The analysts are calling it "efficiency."

The managers are staring at half-empty Slack channels wondering which of their remaining people is updating their CV right now.

Block's CEO said "a significantly smaller team can do more and do it better." He might be right about the tools. He's wrong about the people. Smaller teams don't perform better when the person running them was never equipped to run them in the first place.

50% of workers with an ineffective manager plan to leave within 12 months. That clock started the day of the layoff. Not the day someone finally notices.

The layoffs made the news. The management failure won't. Not until the voluntary exits start in 90 days and nobody connects it back to the manager who was promoted from engineering two years ago and never got a single day of training.

How many of your managers right now could tell you what their team is actually feeling this week?

A CFO asked me last week how many people on his team were actively interviewing. I told him I didn't know.
"Then how can you tell me I'm losing $8.4M to turnover?"

"Because I can see the 67-day window. The gap between when someone decides to leave and when they tell you. That's where the cost is hiding."

He asked how many people were in the window right now.

I told him: "Eleven."

He went quiet. Then asked which ones.

"I can't tell you names. Clover ERA is anonymous. But I can show you the patterns. The withdrawal. The silence. The 'just staying in my lane' behavior. Those are the Already Gone signals."

He pulled up his 1:1 notes. Scrolled through three months. Looked up.

"I thought they were getting easier to manage."

Yeah. That's the signal most leaders miss. When your biggest critic stops criticizing. When your detail person stops asking for details. When your 'why are we doing it this way?' person starts saying 'sounds good.'

It doesn't mean they trust you more.

It means they've already decided to leave.

Who on your team got "easier" in the last 67 days?

A CFO called me yesterday. Four resignations. Eight days. All of them after one email.

He'd read the Citrini memo the weekend it dropped. The one predicting a white-collar recession by 2028. His board called the following Monday.

"We need to be prepared."

By Tuesday he'd made three decisions. Stopped backfilling two open roles. Deferred a promotion that was supposed to happen in March. Sent an email that afternoon freezing the Q2 training budget.

"I thought it would show we were being prudent. That we were taking the future seriously."

I asked how long between the email and the first resignation.

"Wednesday. One day."

A senior product manager. Then Thursday, an engineer. Friday, another engineer. Yesterday, his finance lead.

"Did any of them mention the email?"

"Emily did. The product manager. She said 'I saw the training freeze. I know what that means.'"

I asked what it meant.

"That there's no future here."

I asked if she was right.

Long silence.

"We were preparing for 2028. She needed to know about 2026."

The four resignations cost him $1.1 million to replace. The email took him four minutes to write.

Wall Street is calling it the AI scare trade. Hedge funds shorting white-collar employment as an investment thesis.

Your board read the memo. You sent the email. Your best people read it as confirmation.

Not of what's coming in 2028.

Of what they already suspected in 2026.

What email are you about to send that will confirm what your best people are already thinking?

A VP of Engineering told me his lead architect resigned six weeks after her quarterly review. She'd gotten a 4.2 out of 5. "Exceeds expectations."

"Probably cost us $120K to replace her," he said. I ran the math. $340K.

"What changed between the review and the resignation?"

"Nothing. That's what I don't understand. The quarterly was great. We covered her Q1 goals, talked about the migration she'd led, asked if she had any concerns. She said no."

"What happened in those six weeks?"

"We announced the product roadmap for Q2. Shifted some priorities. Moved her migration work to maintenance mode so she could support the new platform build."

"Did you tell her that in the quarterly?"

"No. The roadmap wasn't finalized yet. We told the team two weeks later."

"How'd she react?"

"Fine. She said 'makes sense' and started on the new work. Then four weeks later she resigned. Told me she'd accepted a role where she could see projects through."

The quarterly review covered January, February, March. It happened April 2nd. The roadmap announcement happened April 16th. She decided to leave April 18th. She resigned May 14th.

The review said she was exceeding expectations. The roadmap said her work didn't matter anymore. The gap between those two conversations: 14 days.

Who on your team got a great review right before you changed their priorities?

A CFO showed me his 2025 turnover numbers last month. $4.2M in losses.
I asked who owned it. "HR handles that."

I talked to his Head of People. She had a $340K budget. Surveys. A recognition platform with 11% adoption. Pulse checks leadership reads once then files.

I asked if she could change comp bands when someone's underpaid. No.

Restructure teams when a manager's underwater. No.

Override a promotion decision when someone's been passed over twice. No.

"So what can you do?"

"I can measure how people feel about the things I can't change."

That's the job he gave her. Measure the bleeding. Report the numbers. Watch the best people leave. Then get blamed when the exit interview explains exactly what she wasn't allowed to fix.

Here's what most CFOs miss. Turnover doesn't show up as "turnover cost" on the P&L. It's scattered. Recruiting fees under talent acquisition. Overtime in payroll. Lost deals in sales slippage. Consultant hours in professional services.

By the time you reconcile it, the damage is two quarters old and attributed to something else.

CFOs track CAC down to the dollar. They model gross margin by product line. Then they treat a $4M margin leak like it's an HR initiative.

The levers that prevent turnover—manager behavior, workload, comp decisions, promotion paths—don't roll up to HR. They roll up to operations.

You didn't delegate the problem. You just made sure nobody with power was accountable for solving it.

Turnover costs 4x what you're tracking. It's not an HR problem. It's a P&L problem.

Full breakdown in today's newsletter.

A CFO told me last month his company lost $4.2 million to turnover last year. I asked what he was doing about it. "We have someone for that. Talk to H

Open article: Employee Turnover: A CFO Problem, Not an HR Problem by Clive Hays • 6 min read

Employee Turnover: A CFO Problem, Not an HR Problem

A CEO told me last month he had zero turnover risk.
I asked: "Do you know who's in the 67-day window?"
"What window?"

"The gap between when someone decides to leave and when they tell you. That's 67 days on average. During that time, they're interviewing. Negotiating offers. Mentally checked out. And you're paying them full salary while they plan their exit."

He asked how many people were in the window right now.

I told him: "Seven."

"Which ones?"

"I can't tell you names. But I can show you the teams. And the patterns. And the cost if they all resign in the next 90 days."

He asked what that cost would be.

"$2.1M. For seven people you think are fine."

He didn't think he had a turnover problem. He was wrong. He just couldn't see the 67-day window.

Most CEOs can't. That's why they're blindsided when someone resigns.

Do you know who's in your 67-day window right now?

A COO at a mid-size tech company showed me his 2025 retention spend last month. $180K across surveys, a platform, a culture consultant, and manager training workshops.

"We take this seriously," he said.

I pulled up the latest Gallup numbers on my laptop and turned the screen toward him. Global engagement just hit a 10-year low. After the biggest investment in engagement solutions in history.

He looked at the data for about ten seconds. "So the whole industry just... doesn't work?"

Not the way it's being sold.

A survey tells you how someone felt on the day they filled it in. It doesn't tell you what their manager said to them the following Monday. Or didn't say. That's where it lives. Not in a platform. Not in a score. In a conversation that either happened or it didn't.

$438 billion in lost productivity last year. Not because companies didn't try. Because the solutions were measuring the wrong thing and calling it fixed.

The industry sold you the receipt. Not the result.

Which line on your 2025 retention spend changed what a manager actually does on a Tuesday morning?

taplio

The Battle

Mark Zwinderman

Clive Hays

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreMark Zwinderman's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreClive Hays's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Mark Zwinderman

Clive Hays

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);}Mark Zwinderman's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreClive Hays's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreMark Zwinderman's LinkedIn Performance