SAS Environmental Services Ltd

At SAS Environmental Services we use our unique microemulsion technology and 20 years experience in oil waste treatment to solve oil waste problems, treat oil waste sludge, separate oil mud waste and cleanup oil waste in general. Our mission is to clean up the oil waste around the planet until we can honestly say it is Done. We have some ways to go and we would love you to work with us, clean up the oil waste and do so economically, quickly and to the highest standard.

The Moonshot Factory

Director ZCL - The Moonshot Factory

SAS Production Services

Non Executive Director

Craft Prospect

Craft Prospect develops AI systems for cubesats and space based Quantum Key Delivery technology.

Non Executive Chair

Entrepreneur Business School

Business Mentor - Technology Startups & Growth Companies

Surface Active Solutions Ltd

Develop and implement international sales & marketing strategy.

Commercial Director

Edinburgh Napier University

Development of microemulsion systems for use in pesticide formulation and exo-toxicity testing. 

Development of unique chemistries for safe sheepdip formulations.

Formulating new chemistry for use in mining operations.

Research Assistant

CEO at SAS | Creating Moonshots

As a seasoned entrepreneur and CEO at SAS Environmental Services, I have devoted my career to the development of innovative oil waste treatment solutions for environmental remediation projects. With over two decades of experience, I have led SAS to become a global leader in reducing energy consumption and carbon footprints in oil waste treatment. 

Beyond SAS, I mentor and train technology companies & founder teams as part of the Moonshot Factory.  

I am always open to connecting with like-minded professionals and exploring new opportunities. Feel free to reach out if you are interested in discussing innovative waste management, entrepreneurship, or business growth.

In the Moonshot Factory we provide transformational mentoring and training programs to incubated companies at the Higgs Centre for Innovation in Edinburgh. Collaborating directly with founder teams, managing directors, and investors, we enhance the strategic direction and execution of early-stage ventures. 

Throughout my career, I have had the privilege of working closely with founders and startups across a diverse range of industries, including pharma & medical technologies, space tech, renewables, environmental, and energy. As a trusted advisor, non-executive director, or through program-based engagements such as Edinburgh Innovations (Edinburgh University), Planet Positive Lab (Oxford), the Royal Society of Edinburgh Research Fellowship Awards, Converge Challenge, or iCure, I am committed to driving success and empowering transformative ventures.

Mark Zwinderman

People ask me sometimes, now that my life is roughly 50/50 In Scotland and The Netherlands (and a wee bit in England), do I feel Scottish or Dutch?

All it takes is the last 30 minutes of watching a football match to know the answer 😄 . I aged 20 years last night.

Legends.

Strategic Architect | Designing Systems for High-Ambition Leaders, Organisations & Ecosystems

Scotland has another report (a good one). Now Scotland needs a Moonshot.

The Scaling Scotland report identifies many real issues. These include talent gaps, funding gaps, lack of successful, scaling companies.

But what the report lacks is focus.
Without a single, galvanising mission, even the best recommendations do not develop momentum.

Here is one version worth committing to:

By 2035, Scotland will create 50 new £100M+ companies headquartered here. These will be built on strong foundations, led by world-class talent, and powered by long-term capital.

Built on world-class research. Led by world-class talent. Powered by long-term capital.

They could generate:
•	30,000 high-value jobs in deep tech, life sciences, and technology
•	45,000 total jobs when including suppliers and services
•	£2bn+ in annual wages across Scottish communities
•	Approaching £1bn in annual tax receipts - before VAT

To get there, we don’t need twenty priorities.

We need three powerful levers that compound everything else. These are the following.

Foundations for Scale
Get venture structure right from day one. Equity alignment for growth, governance, commercial clarity. Foundations that enable building companies that can scale and choose to stay. You can’t build a skyscraper on weak foundations. Startups and spinouts in Scotland need structure for future success.

Talent Magnet
Develop, attract, and retain leaders who know how to scale. Make Scotland a career destination, not a stepping stone. Reward talent in equity and cash. Incentivise  people and businesses for success.

Long-Term Capital
A £500M fund for Scotland based innovation businesses. Patient growth capital for 7-10 year journeys from lab to market. Business growth follows money.

One Moonshot goal with three levers.

If we focus policy, efforts and behaviours we will get effectively use these levers. Better lives for all through effective scaling of innovation.

Report link: https://lnkd.in/ejBUuJVN

You are not too old.

Springsteen, age 63, Leeds.

No excuses. Just go do it.

If you are 50 or over and struggling for success in the job market; be a commercial champion, set up a business, learn how to sell, go for 50 coffees, it’s all good.

No alternative text description for this image

The entrepreneurial ecosystem is complex, hard to navigate, and confusing for founders.

Do we need a single access door for founders to the ecosystem to make it easy to get the right support?

Usually the proposed solution is another website, AI platform, regulating advisors and incubators to some standard, advocating for a single approach to entrepreneurship.

A healthy ecosystem is messy, chaotic, filled with good, bad, ugly, and full of experiments and strange and wonderful people.

A healthy ecosystem can be accessed from all sorts of angles. By air, land and sea. Maybe you can tunnel in. Use a parachute. Perhaps if you pull the candlestick on the fireplace a secret doorway opens. There’s many ways into entrepreneurship and that helps democratise access. 

Single doors and standardisation are designed to keep people, and competitors, out. Hadrian’s Wall was not designed to make it easier for Scots to shop in England.

A single door access ecosystem is not an ecosystem, it’s Disneyland.

If we want business and founders to flourish and grow, we need to treat them as grown ups. The world is not a single access door place. 

Figure it out. Find what approach works for you. Work hard. Grow resilience by spades.

#Entrepreneurship #Business #Scotland #Oxford #Startups

The future is not random.
 
There’s a group of people who are convinced technology will magically fix everything. There’s another group who are convinced technology will destroy everything.
 
Both perspectives are wrong.
 
The future is created, by us, and not one future is inevitable.
 
Progress happens when four things align:
• The physics allows it
• The economics trend in our favour
• The technology becomes usable
• Society is willing to adopt it
 
Moonshot thinking is a structured approach to co-creating a “preferred future” and pulling it forward.
 
Breakthroughs rarely come from a single invention. They come from convergence of different areas. For example AI plus robotics, biotech plus materials, energy plus storage.
 
If you are building something ambitious, the real challenge is designing the adoption pathway.
 
Make it cheaper, easier, faster, and safer than the current alternative, and adoption accelerates.
 
Future thinking is about taking actions today that compound into impact over the next decade.
 
If you are looking to be part of building our future and based at Oxford University, join us and other Moonshot driven founders at the ground breaking Oxford Moonshot Programme.

🗓️ 11 November, 12:30 – 13:30
💻 Register for the online information session: tinyurl.com/mry5ny6x
🚀 Ready to apply? enspire.ox.ac.uk/moonshot

#Moonshot #Enspire #Oxford #Entrepreneur #Startup Greg Jones Dora Handrea #Enspire

Open article: The Oxford Moonshot by enspire.ox.ac.uk

I was at Rhodes house for an Oxford Venture Angels dinner and a few pitches this week. Home to many Rhodes Scholars over the years since 1928.

How does this relate to Moonshots and the Oxford Moonshot Programme?

Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the Moon was twice rejected for a Rhodes Scholarship.

Because he was rejected, he ended up in a different career. One that would ultimately make him part of the Apollo 11 crew, and the second man to walk on the Moon.

Follow your Moonshot. Start right here in Oxford.

🗓️ 11 November, 12:30 – 13:30
💻 Register for the online information session: tinyurl.com/mry5ny6x
🚀 Ready to apply? enspire.ox.ac.uk/moonshot

#Moonshot #Enspire #Oxford #Entrepreneur #Startup Greg Jones Dora Handrea

In 1949, American actor Sam Wanamaker arrived in London searching for Shakespeare's Globe Theatre. He found only a blackened plaque on an unused brewery wall, incorrectly placed.

Most people would have shaken their heads and walked away.

Sam spent the next 23 years making the impossible possible.

He founded the Shakespeare Globe Trust in 1971, then fought bureaucracy, skeptical colleagues, and hostile local councils. He poured his own earnings as an actor and director into the project. He navigated fire regulations that hadn't allowed a thatched roof in London since 1666. He battled developers who wanted high-rise housing on the site.

Many called it his "great obsession." The project was declared impossible.

Sam died in 1993, while the building was still under construction.

But The Globe Theatre opened in 1997. An indoor theatre bearing Sam's name opened in 2014. His vision transformed cultural expectations and redefined what "impossible" means.

This is what every moonshot requires

→ A vision so compelling it survives decades of rejection 
→ Personal sacrifice (Sam invested his own money when others wouldn't) 
→ Relentless focus despite shifting obstacles → The ability to inspire others to join an "impossible" mission

Sam never saw the finished theatre. But he saw the first performance in 1993, while builders were still working around the actors.
That's the moonshot mindset. You don't wait for perfect conditions. You start. You persist. You inspire others to believe.

You start. Others will join you.

I architect Moonshot programmes for leaders, enterprises, and regions

This week I've been mostly...

Having some amazing conversations on Moonshots in the environment (oil waste treatment!), the UK, the World, Islands (that was surprising), and solving the Listeria challenge for the food industry.

I've also been threading a few needles it feels. With space suits gloves and not wearing any glasses. Some weeks.

A funny week. Not boring. Now off to get my G&T.

Great time with Hayleigh May who makes my work so much fun, talking to Marc Winn and now having 40 more ideas to deal with (thanks!), and finally my business partners in Abu Dhabi the tireless (and well titled) Sir John W.F. Harrison, Bt and MAZIN AL-SHIBLI. They have no feet and voice after a crazy busy week at ADIPEC. Thank you both.

G&T time.

Moonshot thinking isn’t about  coming up with big goals.

It’s about:
– clarity
– sequencing
– systems
– capability
– long-term momentum

They didn’t manage to reach the moon by “thinking big.”
It was reached by designing Mercury → Gemini → Apollo.

Moonshot is a method, not a dream.

Big goals don’t create capability.
Capability creates big goals.
Moonshot thinking builds both.

A powerful post. The line that stood out to me was “we keep acting as though politicians — rarely trained in complex delivery — should fix everything”

This is exactly the pattern I see across universities, industry and government projects. We keep outsourcing the mission. We hand the problem to a single actor and then wait. In Scotland it is usually Scottish Enterprise who are handed the role of the cavalry. Expected to come up over the hill with some magic.

Moonshot thinking suggests a different model.
If you want to change an ecosystem, you build the capability around government, not inside it.

Government sets direction and delivery belongs to the wider system.

That includes founders, researchers, operators, investors, implementation teams, people willing to pull things into reality. Business leaders. Business networks.

Some nations have figured this out. The UK hasn’t yet. But the ingredients are all here.

Before we ask “what should Government do”, we should ask a question.

What is the mission, who owns which piece, and what architecture lets that mission scale?

That’s the work we need if we want more than reports and we want results.

Global Presenter & Moderator | Strategic Connector for Founders, Funds & Change-Makers | Co-Founder of Impact Ventures

🌍 Whatever happens in the Budget on Wednesday, I'll be leaving the country.

Only for a few days - a business trip to Riyadh.

Being away from the UK is always a chance to reflect on a country which, despite its enormous attractions, spends a lot of time doubting itself.

We have remarkable resources, problem-solvers and solutions at our disposal.

Deciding who should be doing what is part of our problem.

Imagine for a moment that all “Charity” is a failure of the state.

Now imagine that all “State”, all “Government”, is a failure of charity - or more broadly, of community.

This confusion about roles and responsibilities has been on my mind.

I recently read a UK House of Lords report on funding technology companies and realised the people best placed to deliver its recommendations weren’t in Government, but across all sectors.

Too often we read such reports and say to Government: “over to you”.

We keep acting as though politicians - uniquely untrained for complex delivery - should fix everything.

When business people see problems, they often fire missile-shaped letters, petitions and policy demands into the heart of Government, as if this were the only route to change.

Instead, reviews could spark cross-sector implementation teams, charged with doing, not talking - inspired by Government, but not confined to it.

My two years on the Council on Social Action at 10 Downing Street taught me that even the most powerful address in the land doesn’t possess a mythical “lever room” where change happens. Seeing its limits was disappointing, challenging, and ultimately inspiring.

I remain in awe of anyone who runs for public office and grateful to those who serve their “tour of duty”.

But imagining Government’s role begins and ends with Government activity misses the point.

The opportunity is to connect, galvanise and inspire new collaborations - to oversee a national social-innovation A&R centre that spots and backs what works, and isn’t afraid of big bets.

The power to convene does not begin and end with a few receptions. Not every social problem has a policy-shaped answer.

In the past month, I’ve been in companies, world-famous recording studios, art galleries, and both Houses of Parliament. 

Each visit reinforced that we lack the institutions needed to drive 21st-century change.

One day, we'll have a House of Solutions.

Until then - whatever the Budget brings - let’s imagine futures where Government does nothing, and ones where it does everything.

Then, let’s build a world in between.

                                                    *****

#HouseOfSolutions

Decide today to apply for the Oxford Moonshot. 

Are you are ambitious?  
Do you want to have an impact on the world?
Are you ready to take action?

Apply for the Oxford Moonshot. A brand new programme launched by University of Oxford to build on the extraordinary legacy of innovation, science, and world changing inventions that have originated from Oxford.

This programme applies the methodology used by some of the world's most successful business leaders, not to mention the original Moonshot that landed a man on the Moon.

Cut out the noise and distractions and find out where your focus needs to be.  

Contact:
Greg Jones – greg.jones@admin.ox.ac.uk
Apply:
Ready to apply? enspire.ox.ac.uk/moonshot

A brand new programme for founders with real ambition and drive to do something special.

And why would you not?

🚀🌙 Oxford Moonshot Applications Closing: T-Minus 5 Days 

The countdown is on. Don’t miss your chance to join the Oxford Moonshot Programme - an initiative designed to support bold innovators tackling some of the world’s biggest challenges, from cleantech and medtech to AI, fintech, and beyond.

Through expert-led workshops, founder talks, industry clinics, and one-on-one mentoring, participants develop the focus, confidence, and investor readiness to take their ventures further - culminating in a Demo Day with £30,000 in equity-free prizes and pathways to continued support.

👩‍🚀 Who’s eligible - University of Oxford:
DPhil candidates 
Early Career Researchers
Alumni within 2 years of graduation

👉 Don’t miss your launch window. Apply now by 21 November: enspire.ox.ac.uk/moonshot

Greg Jones | Dora Handrea | Mark Zwinderman | Oxford Saïd Entrepreneurship Centre | Oxford University Innovation | Careers Service, University of Oxford | Enterprising Women Oxford | MPLS Researcher Training and Development | The ZERO Institute - University of Oxford | Oxford Edge

Just one more.

“According to the British Geological Survey (BGS), when Kenny McLean scored from the halfway line to seal a breathtaking 4-2 win over Denmark, which are ranked 18 places higher in the world than Scotland, the reaction at Hampden Park was equivalent to a very small earthquake”

What if Steve Jobs had been into Lego?

How do you keep the dust off the nice Lego sets you have? It’s impossible. They are great designs and dusting them is hard.

Amanda proposes automating the process. A tiny robot that cleans your Lego sets while you sleep.

With Lidar, spider web removal tool, air puffer, hoover, and a dog kennel shaped charging station.

Bonkers? Or really quite Brilliant?

We debate and imagine the future of Lego cleaning. 

EP7 of Brilliant or Bonkers is out! The Lego cleaning robot.

https://lnkd.in/ebgFUY7g

Brick creeper - The tiny roomba for your Lego set

AI used to create job descriptions and AI used to create thousands of job applications and CVs.

Then AI filters select the most fitting candidates. Who are interviewed by AI avatars. The candidates using AI to help them answer the questions.

Nobody gets hired.

Government and house builders using AI to speed the process to build more homes.

Local people using AI to create objections.

Government using AI to scan objections and create replies and ways around the objections.

It’s going really well isn’t it?

First social media, dating apps (a whole generation staying single), now AI.

It’s time to go back to communities where people talk, laugh, debate, argue, compromise, think, solve problems, muddle on.

The answer is in people coming together like we have done for thousands of years and working, ever so messily, together to do stuff.

Open article: AI-powered nimbyism could grind UK planning system to a halt, experts warn — The Guardian by apple.news

AI-powered nimbyism could grind UK planning system to a halt, experts warn — The Guardian

Applications close tomorrow for the First Launch of the Oxford Moonshot. 

This will be different.

Ana Stewart is right in saying that founders are the unsung heroes of the economy, but the real question is not so much if Scotland supports founders.

The question we need to ask is how well our system is architected to scale with them.

Both the Scaling Scotland report and Ana’s ISBE address highlight the same truth from different angles.

I don’t see an ambition problem.
I do see that Scotland has an architecture problem.

A founder-first mindset matters. Support through incorporation, early traction, and first customers matters. But scaling, true scaling, is where the fractures in the system show up.

leadership capability, governance, commercial architecture, international readiness, long-term capital, and confidence in the next decade.

If Scotland genuinely wants to unlock the potential £20B annual uplift and 100,000 high-value jobs, (not to mention the associated jobs in the community) the solution is not just “do more”.

We need to be building a coherent scale-up system. This means we need clear sequencing for companies as they move from startup → scale-up → global player.

Leadership communities that reduce isolation and increase capability. 

Long-term capital that can stay with a company through the difficult middle years. 

Governance and commercial depth that match our technical excellence.

A talent architecture that keeps experience flowing back into the ecosystem.

We need to design the system that makes scaling predictable, repeatable, and durable.

The two reports together give Scotland exactly that dual perspective.

Bottom-up: founder resilience, confidence, clarity.

Top-down: structure, capital, governance, national ambition.

Combine them, and Scotland has a blueprint for a world-class scale-up ecosystem.

A Moonshot architecture for national economic transformation.

But the real power comes when all three align; culture + talent + long-term capital inside a coherent architecture.

That’s the future Scotland deserves.

Partner at Harper Macleod advising entrepreneurs and investors

“Follow our founders,” supporting them from the idea stage to global expansion, and championing entrepreneurs as “the economy’s unsung heroes.” - Ana Stewart
 
At Harper Macleod LLP, this isn’t just a ambition - it’s what we do everyday. Our founder-first approach means being more than legal advisers. We partner from incorporation to international expansion because scaling isn’t just about capital and talent - it’s about confidence, clarity, and having the right team behind you. That’s where I genuinely believe we differ. We want to work with you at all stages of your life cycle. We’re there to support you from the very beginning right through your scale up journey. We’re not just waiting for you to make it big. 

Scotland’s potential is huge: scaling effectively could unlock £20 billion in annual revenue and create 100,000+ high-value jobs. That’s the ambitious vision laid out in the Scaling Scotland Report by Shane Corstorphine & The Scottish Scale Up team. This report alongside, Ana Stewart’s new growth blueprint in her speech at the Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship (ISBE) Conference offers a founder-focused roadmap to make scaling-up a national priority.

🤝 A Shared Vision

1. Building a Scottish Powerhouse: Scotland must evolve from a start-up culture into a thriving scale-up ecosystem, unlocking high value jobs, and driving long term prosperity.

2. Global Competitiveness: both reports emphasise the need to expand international market access, boost export readiness and position Scotland as a magnet for global talent and investment.

3. Measurement & Accountability: Transparent reporting and progress tracking are highlighted as essential to ensure impact and accountability.

❌ Where They Differ

1. Approach: Stewart’s plan is bottom-up and is founder-centric, prioritising mental health, resilience, and tailored support. Scaling Scotland takes a top-down view, focusing on systemic changes in governance, funding, and culture.

2. Funding Reform: Stewart prioritises capital access and tailored interventions but Scaling Scotland estimates a funding gap between £217 million and £1.5 billion for Scottish scale-ups, particularly at mid-to-late growth stages and stresses the need for investment that supports businesses over extended periods.

3. Governance: Governance is central to Scaling Scotland’s roadmap, identifying leadership and board capability as critical barriers.

These two reports offer complementary solutions - one for immediate action, the other for long-term transformation. Aligning both could unlock Scotland’s full scale-up potential and drive sustainable growth.

At Harper Macleod LLP, we’re ready to play our part by following our founders - because when they succeed, Scotland succeeds.

👉 If you had to choose one lever to shape Scotland’s future, which would it be - funding, talent, or culture?

➡️ Read the report: https://lnkd.in/egPdZ73h 

#ScaleUp #Entrepreneurship #Scotland #Innovation #GrowthStrategy

Open article: Shane Corstophine - Non-Executive Director by nowscaleit.com

Shane Corstophine - Non-Executive Director

Running a business often feels similar to flying a spacecraft being hit by lightning. 

When Apollo 12 was hit by lightning on launch, every instrument lit up like a Christmas tree.
Mission Control was silent for a few seconds, nobody knew what to do.

Except one young engineer in a back room.

He remembered a simulation over a year ago.

“Try SCE to AUX.”

The commander flipped the switch.
The spacecraft rebooted.
The mission continued all the way to the Moon.

Big missions don’t survive because everything goes right.
They survive because someone knows the system deeply enough to reset it when everything goes wrong.

Every project has an “SCE to AUX” moment. A small action that saves the mission.

Do you know yours?

Earth shot prizes.

They are a well intended idea. They do not however have anything to do with a Moonshot.

There’s no clearly defined Goal. There’s no timeline. There’s no breakdown in stages of scaling and development.

It’s great that Kylie sings a few songs. Love Kylie. 

A real Moonshot, like the moon landing, is the result of a considered process and the question:

Where and when can we win?

Then you define the goal. Land a man on the moon, return him home safely, before this decade is out.

Make air cleaner. Or get a cure for cancer. Not moonshots.

Improve survival rates for pancreatic cancer to 90% by 2045. That’s a Moonshot.

We have big problems to solve. Tapping each other on the shoulder shouting well done! And having a Prince hand out a trophy while Kylie sings? Not good enough.

Let’s create some genuine Moonshots. They create the needed clarity and purpose.

Open article: William announces Earthshot Prize 2025 winners in Rio — BBC News by apple.news

William announces Earthshot Prize 2025 winners in Rio — BBC News

Moonshots. The world needs people with ambition who take action.

Every successful Moonshot that had a positive impact on our world started with a few people, a few pints, some empty crisp packets, and one person saying “you know, why don’t we do it?”

Do it. You’ll meet great people, learn a bunch of stuff, and just maybe change the world in small or big ways.

Clover ERA

Chief Engagement Officer (CEO) | Driving Neuroscience-Backed Employee Engagement | CLOVER ERA
Championing the Future of Work Through Science & Strategy
As the Chief Engagement Officer (CEO) of Clover ERA, I’m on a mission to revolutionize workplace engagement—one brain at a time. Grounded in neuroscience and behavioral science, CLOVER ERA provides organizations with the tools to optimize performance, enhance connection, and create workplaces where people don’t just work—they thrive.

With a deep understanding of how brain chemistry drives motivation, resilience, and collaboration, I help leaders shift from guesswork to science-backed strategies. Engagement isn’t just an HR metric—it’s a trillion-dollar opportunity for businesses to unlock untapped potential.

Chief Engagement Officer

Front Porch Agility

Enterprise Lean-Agile Tranformation Consultant & Product Coach - Front Porch Agility

ICON Agility Services

Agile Transformation Consultant and Trainer

Enterprise Agile Transformation Consultant

Nymble Consulting

Senior Transformation Consultant

Publicis Sapient

As a Scaled Agile Program Consultant (SPC 5.0) Clive provides consulting, coaching and training in the ways of Lean Agile to clients in retail, energy, tourism & hospitality, agriculture.
Clive is an experienced Scaled Agile Trainer, both in the classroom and online environments - comfortable running courses for Leading SAFe, LPM, APM, POPM, Scrum Master, Teams.
In addition to this Clive has developed digital transformation systems for businesses, value acceleration programs and training programs for Agile.
Additional skills and experience include product management, delivery lead and program management.

SPC - Senior Manager Program Management

Sendcustomer

Championed the rollout of the Scaled Agile Framework and the launch of three Agile Release Trains as a key member of the Lean-Agile Centre of Excellence (LACE) with ownership for leading Value Stream Mapping Workshops and providing  coaching to scrum teams as Scrum Master and Product Owner

Agile & Product Consultant

Onsite Business Generator

Successful development, adaption and implementation of Agile and Lean business methodologies in stagnated business looking to take the next step in their growth cycle.  Through effective use of PI Planning, Daily Stand Ups, Retropsepctives and Continuous deployment, with Local and Indian teams the business transformed into an effective delivery machine

Director of Product Management

Hygiene Solutions

Director of Product Management - delivering on aggressive growth targets for the business.  Growing the business from zero to $multi-million company within 3 years and on to sustained year on year growth rates of more than 20%.

eCompany Ltd

Director and Delivery lead for development of Computerised Accommodation System (CAS) – automated property management system (PMS) allowing establishments from 1 to 30 rooms to make their real time inventory available to the world.  The year 1999! The era of dialup internet.  Through partnerships this ultimately formed part of the concept of Booking.com.

Director Travel Technologies

HA Hospitality Staffing

Banqueting Management. Training and Supply of waiting a bar staff.  Employing over 250 people.

MD and Owner 

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

Why do 85% of employees feel disconnected from work?

Not because they lack perks. But because they don't feel safe. They don't feel seen. They don't feel like they matter.

I believe in a world where people wake up inspired, feel safe at work, and return home fulfilled. This isn't idealism. It's biology.

The Human Truth:
When people feel psychologically safe, their brains release oxytocin - the trust chemical. When they see growth paths, dopamine drives them forward. When valued, serotonin stabilizes wellbeing.
I co-authored "The Neuroscience of Employee Engagement" and "The Trillion Dollar Problem" to start a movement where leaders understand engagement isn't about managing people - it's about caring for them.

The CLOVER Framework:
Communication - People need to feel heard
Learning - Growth is a human need
Opportunities - Everyone deserves to reach their potential
Vulnerability - Trust begins when leaders go first
Enablement - Tools create empowerment
Reflection - Wisdom comes from looking back

What We Built at Clover ERA:
Not another survey tool. A daily practice of caring. Managers ask: "How can I serve my team?" Employees share their reality in 30 seconds. We close the gap between leaders and those they serve.
When you lead with purpose, income follows:

67% less burnout
People feel genuinely cared for
Companies save millions while saving their people

A Story That Matters:
Last month a manager told me: "My team member thanked me for seeing them. Not for a raise. For seeing them."
That's why we do this work.
The Invitation:
If you believe:

Every person has value beyond output
Leadership means serving
Trust is everything
Work should add to life

Join us.
Connect With Me:
🤝 Message me about what work should be
📖 Read our research on leading differently
🌱 Try Clover ERA - daily caring in action
🎯 Share the mission

The Circle of Safety Starts With You.
Engagement isn't a business problem. It's a human problem to care about.
When leaders eat last and vulnerability becomes strength, work transforms from obligation to opportunity.

We're building workplaces worthy of the human spirit.
Follow if you believe work can be different.
Message to start a movement in your organization.
Together, we'll build workplaces where everyone belongs.
That's not just good for business. It's good for humanity.

Clive Hays

An engineering director told me last week her top architect quit with zero warning. "Probably cost us $150K to replace him," she said. I ran the math. $380K.

"Did his behavior change in the weeks before?"

"Actually yes. He stopped pushing back on my decisions. Stopped questioning timelines. Just said 'sounds good' to everything."

"And you thought..."

"I thought he was finally maturing. Getting easier to work with. Becoming more of a team player."

That's the signal most managers 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 "whatever you think."

It doesn't mean they trust you more.
It means they've already decided to leave.

They stopped fighting because they stopped caring.

Who on your team got "easier" in the last 60 days?

Tech CEOs (200-500 employees): Turnover costs $5.4M, not $800K. I show you the math, then help you prevent it | Co-Founder, Clover ERA

A VP asked me last month why 3 senior engineers quit within 6 weeks.
"Zero warning," he said.
I talked to their managers separately.

Engineering manager: "He started taking calls during standups. Didn't think much of it."

Product manager: "She stopped volunteering for the architecture discussions. Figured she was just busy."

DevOps manager: "He was silent in retrospectives. Thought he was finally listening instead of always talking."

Each manager saw ONE behavior change. None of them connected the dots.

When I showed the VP the pattern across all three departures:

Calendar blocks appeared → 42 days before resignation 
Stopped volunteering → 38 days before resignation
Went silent in meetings → 29 days before resignation

Same sequence. 3 people. $960K in replacement costs.

The VP stared at the timeline. "Each manager only sees their own team. They had no way to know this was a pattern."

Here's what's actually happening: The 67-day early warning system exists. But it's fragmented across managers, skip-levels, and peers. Each person sees 20% of the picture. Nobody connects it.

How many patterns are invisible in your company because no single person sees the full picture?

A CEO told me last week: "It's cheaper to replace people than to invest in retention programs."  So I asked him: "What did your last replacement actually cost?"

"Recruiting fees, maybe $25K. Training. Some productivity loss."

I walked him through the rest.
The work that didn't get done while the role was empty. 
The projects that slipped. 
The client account they lost during the transition. 
The overtime the team absorbed. 
The institutional knowledge that walked out the door.

By the time we finished:
Recruiting & hiring: $25K 
Training & onboarding: $40K 
Lost productivity: $65K 
Project delays: $30K 
Client impact: $80K 
Team overtime & morale: $20K

Total: $260K to replace one person.

Then I asked him: "How much would you have spent to keep that person from leaving?"

He went quiet.

Because the answer is probably $15K-$30K. A promotion. A raise. A project they actually cared about. A manager who listened.

Here's the problem: he was asking the wrong question.

"Should we invest in retention programs?" is too abstract. It sounds expensive and vague.

The real question is: "Would you spend $20K to avoid losing $260K?"

When you frame it that way, the answer is obvious. But most companies never frame it that way. They compare replacement cost to "retention programs" instead of comparing it to the specific investment that would have kept one person from leaving.

That's not a math problem. That's a framing problem.

What would change if you stopped asking 'should we invest in retention?' and started asking 'what would it cost to keep this specific person?

CEO at a 320-person company asked me last week how much turnover was costing them. I said probably $4 million. She laughed. Said maybe $800K tops.

We spent 20 minutes doing the math together.

Replacement costs. Lost productivity. Training time. Project delays. Client impact -- $5.7 million.

She stopped laughing.
The problem isn't that companies don't care about turnover. The problem is they're measuring the wrong number.
Turnover RATE doesn't show up on your P&L.
Turnover COST does.

When's the last time you calculated the actual dollar cost of turnover at your company? Because if the answer is 'never,' you're managing a multi-million dollar problem without knowing the number.

Tech CEOs Think Turnover Costs $800K. It’s Actually $5.4M. I Show Them the Math—Then Help Them Prevent It | Co-Founder, Clover ERA

A CEO at a 320-person company asked me last week how much turnover was costing her. I said probably $4 million. She laughed. Said maybe $800K tops.
We did the math. $5.7 million.

She stopped laughing.

14,706 other C-suite executives read that story because they're making the same mistake.

They're tracking turnover rate. That doesn't show up on the P&L.
Turnover cost does. And most CEOs have no idea what that number actually is.

This week in The Intersection, I break down the three visibility layers that keep you blind to your actual turnover cost.

When's the last time you calculated the actual dollar cost of turnover at your company?

The Question Last Monday I asked a simple question on LinkedIn: "When's the last time you calculated the actual dollar cost of turnover at your compan

Open article: Why 14,706 CXOs stopped scrolling at the same question by Clive Hays • 3 min read

Why 14,706 CXOs stopped scrolling at the same question

I asked 40 managers when they last flagged a flight risk to leadership. 34 have stopped entirely.
But 6 never stopped. Why?

Same companies. Same pressure. Same risk of getting blamed.

I asked them what was different.

Engineering manager: "Most VPs only ask about flight risks after someone resigns. Mine asks every week. Not as a gotcha. As a standing question. That's why I still speak up."

Product director: "At my last company, I flagged someone and got asked why I let it happen. Here, my boss helped me fix it. That one difference changed everything."

HR business partner: "Most leadership teams only want the wins. Mine asks for the worries too. So I tell them."

The 34 who stopped didn't stop because they don't care.

They stopped because speaking up backfired.

The 6 who kept going didn't have more courage.

They had leaders who didn't punish them for honesty.

Same people. Different environment. Opposite outcome.

The cost of a culture of silence: invisible and compounding.

The cost of changing it: one question, asked consistently.

"Who are you worried about this week?"

When's the last time your managers heard that from you?

"They left for money."
I've heard this 21 times in the last 60 days.
CEO tells me they lost someone. Good person. Hated to see them go. "But what can you do? They got a 20% raise. We couldn't match it."

Then I ask to see the exit interview.
"Left for compensation and career growth."

Okay. Now let me show you what that same person said in anonymous check-ins 67 days before they resigned:

Day -67: "My manager doesn't listen to my ideas anymore." 
Day -52: "I asked about the promotion timeline again. Got a vague answer again." 
Day -38: "Third project in a row that got killed. What's the point?" 
Day -23: "I've stopped bringing up problems. Nothing changes anyway." 
Day -9: "Got a LinkedIn message. Taking the call."

The exit interview says money.

The 67 days before the exit interview say something completely different.

Here's what actually happens:
Someone gets frustrated. Feels unheard. Stops caring. Updates LinkedIn. Takes recruiter calls. Gets an offer.

Then they write "compensation" on the exit interview because it's easier than writing "I tried to tell you I was unhappy for 67 days and nobody listened."

Money is the socially acceptable reason to leave.

It's rarely the real reason.

How many people on your team wrote "compensation" on their exit interview but were actually telling you something else for months before that?

A VP of Engineering told me last month he knew his top performer was leaving. Eight months before she resigned. He never told his CEO. I asked why not.

"I did tell him. Twice. First time, he said he'd look into it. Nothing happened. 
Second time, he asked me why I couldn't keep my own team happy."

So when she finally quit, the VP acted surprised in the all-hands.

He'd known for eight months. He stopped saying anything after month two.

Here's what's actually happening in your company right now:
Your managers see who's about to leave. They're not telling you. Not because they don't care. Because the last time they told you, you made it their problem.

You trained them to stay quiet.
What would your managers tell you about flight risks if they knew it wouldn't come back on them?

What 251 comments and 108 reposts revealed about the silence before resignation.

This week I posted about a VP who missed the warning signs before 3 senior engineers quit.

370,000 people saw it.
251 left comments.
108 shared it with their network.

I read every single comment.

Here's what I didn't expect:

Managers from completely different industries telling the same story. Engineering leads. Product managers. CTOs. Consultants. All describing the same pattern.

Someone pushed back. Got ignored. Stopped pushing. Leadership saw silence and assumed alignment.

Then they resigned.

One Managing Director called it "False Harmony."
A Senior PM said he'd been on both sides of it.
A CEO added the cost nobody tracks: lost opportunity.

I wrote about all of it in this week's edition of The Intersection.

This week I posted about a VP who missed the warning signs before 3 senior engineers quit. 370,000 people saw it. 251 left comments. 108 shared it wit

Open article: What 251 Comments and 108 Reposts Revealed About the Silence Before Resignation by Clive Hays • 3 min read

What 251 Comments and 108 Reposts Revealed About the Silence Before Resignation

82% engaged. Top quartile. Culture award on the wall.
6 of 8 directors actively looking to leave.
Same company. Same month.

I talked to four people inside. Different departments. Different levels.

Same message.

"The director leadership team wants out. The only ones staying are the two who just got here."

"Everyone knows what to put on the survey. You learn fast what answers keep you off the radar."

"The scores look great because nobody's honest anymore."

Surveys measure what people are willing to say in writing.

They don't measure what people are actually thinking.

The gap between those two is where your best people disappear.

How confident are you in your engagement scores?

Got off a call with an HR director who told me "Our engagement scores are 87%. We're doing great."  I asked if the survey was anonymous.
"Well, no. But people trust us to be honest."

Then I asked about turnover.
"It's up 31% this year. We can't figure out why."

Here's why: People don't tell the truth when their name is attached to the survey. They tell you what keeps them safe.

Real engagement isn't measured once a year with a survey people are afraid to answer honestly.

It's measured daily. Anonymously. When people can actually tell you what's wrong while there's still time to fix it.

Your 87% score? That's not engagement. That's fear wearing a smile.

Employee Surveys.  Are they just Fear wearing a Smile?

Had coffee with a manager yesterday who told me something I won't forget.
"I stopped feeling like a failure when I realized I wasn't missing skills. I was missing data."

Sarah manages 14 people in a tech startup. High performer. Promoted last year.

Within 6 months, she'd lost 4 team members.

HR kept telling her to "communicate better" and "build psychological safety."
She tried everything. One-on-ones. Team lunches. Open door policy.

Still, people kept leaving.
The problem wasn't Sarah.

The problem was she found out about issues 6 months after they started.
By the time someone complained, they'd already checked out emotionally.

Now she asks her team one question daily. Takes 30 seconds to answer. Completely anonymous.

She spots quiet cracking before it becomes a resignation letter.

Same manager. Same company. Same team structure.

Different data.

Zero turnover in 4 months.

Want to know if your team member is actually okay?
Stop asking "How are you?"
Everyone says "fine" even when they're cracking.
Try this instead:
"On a scale of 1-10, how sustainable does your workload feel this week?"
Then shut up and listen.
Anything below a 7 needs a conversation.
Anything below a 5 needs immediate action.
This one question has prevented more resignations than any exit interview ever could.
Because you're asking while there's still time to fix it.

I just heard a VP say 'where there's smoke, there's fire' - to justify why a chaotic team got more budget than a stable one.
Your best managers are being punished for running tight ships.
The drama creators? Promoted for putting out fires they started
 #Leadership #Management #EmployeeEngagement

Managers control 70% of employee engagement.
Get 0% of the tools.
Then take 100% of the blame when people quit.
That ends this week.

Marcus spent 8 years as a top performer.
Got promoted to manager.

His training: "You'll figure it out."

Six months later: Three resignations. Called into conference room. Shown engagement scores.
"What's your plan to fix this?"

Marcus had no plan. Nobody taught him one.
Marcus didn't fail management.

The system failed Marcus.
And it's failing you too.

You've tried the one-on-ones. The stay interviews. Being "more available."
None of it worked.

Because nobody taught you the actual systems:
The 6 behavioral signals that predict resignation 37 days before it happens
The 3-factor dopamine reset that fixes burnout without time off

The email clarity formula that prevents $47K miscommunication disasters
The anti-scapegoat playbook that protects you when leadership sets impossible goals

This coming week, I'm running 2 intensive sessions:
1️⃣Tuesday, 18 Nov, 11am ET (4PM GMT): How to spot resignations 30+ days early (and reverse them)
2️⃣Thursday, 20 Nov, 11am ET (4PM GMT): How to fix burnout by restoring dopamine (not reducing workload)

45 minutes. 6 managers each. No theory. Just the frameworks.

I'm not launching a program.
I'm opening access to the systems good managers need but never get.

Comment which session:
"TUESDAY" for resignation prediction
"THURSDAY" for burnout reset

First 6 comments per session get the session link.
After that, you wait for the following week.

You weren't trained to fail.
You were just never trained to succeed.
Let's fix that.

"We're disappointed in your engagement scores."
That's what leadership told Marcus six months after promoting him to manager.
Here's what they didn't tell him:

How to have difficult conversations
What engagement actually means
When to escalate vs. when to handle it
How to spot quiet cracking before resignation letters

They gave him a team of 9 people and an annual survey.
Then blamed him when 3 of them quit.
Managers control 70% of employee engagement.
But we give them 0% of the tools, 0% of the training, and 100% of the blame.
Then we wonder why management is the most stressful job in the company.
Marcus isn't failing. Your system is.

Managers see who's about to leave.
Most of them stopped saying anything about it.
Not because they don't know. Because they learned what happens when they do.
More on that tomorrow.

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