Jonathan Moss

Turning GTM into a revenue factory through recurring impact & helping GTM leaders do the same | GTM Executive leveraging AI ✨ | Keynote Speaker & Advisor | Podcast 🎙️ Host |

I created the Revenue Nervous System™ a framework for building intelligent, self-improving growth engines that learn, adapt, and scale. The IMPACT+ Framework™ is how you implement it: a structured approach for embedding AI across the revenue lifecycle and turning strategy into execution.

I help Founders, Business Executives and Go-to-Market leaders transition to AI-native GTM and architect Agentic Growth Systems that eliminate friction and turn AI into measurable performance outcomes across their business.

At Experity, I serve as EVP & GM for Patient Engagement and Care Agent, the industry's first AI-native clinical intelligence platform. We're transforming how urgent care connects with patients through a multi-agent system that automates communication, personalizes engagement, and unifies clinical + commercial workflows across 3,000+ clinics.

Think of it as the Orchestration and Routing Layer for Healthcare: where data, context, and intelligence finally work together.

Beyond Experity, I work with founders, executive teams, and AI-native startups on growth architecture, GTM execution, and multi-agent system design.

Quick professional stats:
→ 87% median growth rate across all of my roles
→ $1B+ capital raised across portfolios
→ Scaled revenue $0 → $15B
→ Backed by Sequoia, Lightspeed, GTCR, Warburg Pincus, SoftBank

Core expertise: Revenue Nervous System™ | IMPACT+ Framework™ | Agentic AI Growth Strategy | AI-Native GTM | Patient Experience & Healthcare AI

Executive Member

Sprouts.ai named some amazing people and somehow I was included in the top 20 GTM Leaders to Watch in 2026.
 
Grateful. Also a little on the hook now.
 
Because if there's one thing I'm convinced of heading into this year, it's that the GTM leaders worth watching won't be the ones with the most tools, the most initiatives, or the loudest voices.
 
They'll be the ones who figured out how to build systems that actually compound.
 
Here's what I keep seeing: teams stall out not because they lack effort, but because they're running on architecture that was never designed for how buying actually works today.
 
Buyers are more informed. Cycles are less predictable. AI is raising the output bar for everyone.
 
In that environment, staying busy is easy. Knowing what matters is hard.
 
What I've found is that most GTM breakdowns trace back to the same root cause: the system doesn't remember, doesn't learn, and doesn't coordinate in real time.
 
You fix ICP in January. By March, the signal has shifted and nobody updated the model.
 
You run a feedback loop between sales and marketing. But nothing gets captured, so the same mistakes repeat six months later.
 
You add an AI tool. But it's bolted onto a broken process, so you get faster noise instead of better decisions.
 
The teams winning in 2026 aren't just using AI differently. 

They're building differently, around layers of intelligence that compound over time instead of resetting every quarter.
 
Clear context. Institutional memory. Coordinated execution. AI that amplifies judgment instead of replacing it.
 
That's the work. And honestly, it's still early enough that the teams who start now will have a gap that's very hard to close later.
 
Grateful to be in a community of operators who are helping make sense of the GTM foundations, what is working on the "field" and how to manage this transition into the AI-era. 

Some of my good friends Elizabeth McCalley.eth 🦋, Koen Stam 🐰 Jen Igartua, Stephanie Valenti, Steph Reck ⚓, Dale Zwizinski, Sophie Buonassisi ,Sarah Allen-Short, Kiva Kolstein 
 
Strong company to be in.
 
If you're building GTM for 2026, make sure you to follow these great leaders and tell us what is on your mind.

EVP @ Experity | AI-Native GTM Architect | Revenue Nervous System™ | Care Agent | Healthcare AI

Anthropic published new research last week that should change how every GTM leader thinks about their headcount plan.
 
Not "AI might affect jobs someday." Right now. Today.
 
The paper introduces something called "Observed Exposure" 

Combining what LLMs can actually do with how Claude is being used in real work, weighted toward tasks that can be automated. 

Then mapping that against what specific jobs require people to do all day.
 
The GTM numbers:
 
→ Customer service reps: 70.1% AI exposure 
→ Market research analysts: 64.8% 
→ Sales reps: 62.8%
 
That's not theoretical capability. 

That's real-world deployment, mapped against what sales reps actually do all day. Today.
 
But here's the part nobody's talking about.
 
For computer and math roles, AI theoretically can handle 94% of tasks. 

Real-world observed deployment? 33%. That's a 61-point gap sitting there, untapped.
 
That 61-point gap belongs to someone. 

The question is whether you're the one closing it or the one getting closed on.
 
There's another finding buried in the BLS data overlay: for every 10 percentage point increase in AI exposure, employment in that occupation is projected to grow 0.6 points less through 2034.
 
Sounds small. Run it across your entire revenue org and it isn't.
 
But here's what actually surprised me: companies aren't doing layoffs. 

They're doing something quieter. Not backfilling roles. Not approving the next SDR class. 

Running the same RevOps team for three years instead of growing it. 

Letting attrition do the work that announcements would make public.
 
That's how structural labor market shifts actually happen. Not with a headline. With a headcount plan that never gets approved.
  
The GTM leaders getting ahead of this aren't asking "can AI help my team be more productive?" 

They're asking: "What does this role need to look like if AI handles [X] at scale?"
 
Different question. Different answer.

Most GTM awards celebrate the big number.
 
The quarter you 3x'd pipeline. The campaign that went viral. The deal that saved the year.
 
But here's the thing nobody talks about — big numbers built on shaky systems don't compound. They collapse.
 
I've watched it happen more times than I can count across 21+ years of scaling companies. A team absolutely crushes a quarter, leadership throws a party, and six months later they're trying to figure out why the machine stopped working. 

Turns out there was no machine. Just a bunch of really talented people grinding really hard.
 
That's exactly why I'm proud to be on the judging panel for the Winning by Design Growth Awards at Impact Summit 2026.
 
Because this isn't that kind of award.
 
Three categories. Each one matters.
 
→ 𝗕𝗼𝘄𝘁𝗶𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗚𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘁𝗵 𝗠𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘂𝗺 — recognizes leaders who've built across the full customer journey. Acquisition, onboarding, retention, expansion. Not optimized one piece while the rest leaks.
 
→ 𝗦𝗣𝗜𝗖𝗘𝗗 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗚𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘁𝗵 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 — for operators who've made their teams faster 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 making them sloppier. Velocity from alignment, not from pressure.
 
→ 𝗔𝗜 𝗜𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 — this one's close to my heart. Not for teams that "use AI." For leaders who've embedded it into the operating logic of how they grow. AI with intent, not AI as a checkbox.
 
The judges? Jacco van der Kooij. Kyle Norton. Sydney Sloan. Jared Brickman. And me somehow.

Leaders who've actually built and scaled systems at this level.
 
We're not looking for a good story. We want evidence. Before-and-after benchmarks. Real metrics. What actually changed and why it held.
 
𝗡𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝟭𝟴𝘁𝗵.
 
If you're a GTM leader who's done the hard, quiet, unsexy work of building growth infrastructure that compounds — or you know someone who has — this is for you.
 
Not for the headline. For the system behind it.
 
👉 Link in the comments to nominate.
 
Who in your network has built growth the 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 way this year? Tag them below — they deserve the recognition.

Google's VP of Startups just said the quiet part out loud.

LLM wrappers and AI aggregators have their "check engine light" on.

I've been saying this for months. But hearing Darren Mowry from Google Cloud put it that bluntly? That hits different.

Here's what he means: if your entire AI startup is a nice UI sitting on top of GPT or Claude, you're toast. 

The model providers are coming for your lunch. They always were.

The startups that survive? They have vertical depth. 

Cursor doesn't just "use" AI—it understands how developers actually write code. 

Harvey AI doesn't just "chat"—it knows how law firms think about case research.

I've spent the last year building AI-native GTM systems. Not wrappers. Not aggregators. Systems where AI agents run actual operations—prospecting, content, competitive intelligence, pipeline management.

And the difference is night and day.

A wrapper adds a step. An operations-native system removes twelve.

The moat was never the model. It was never the prompt engineering. It's the workflow. 

It's understanding—really understanding—how a specific type of work actually gets done, and then building intelligence into that process.

After 21+ years of scaling operations, I can tell you: this is the same pattern every technology wave follows. The shiny demo phase dies. The "actually runs my business" phase lives.

We're entering that second phase right now.

If you're building on AI, ask yourself: would your product survive if the underlying model got 10x better and the provider launched their own version of your feature?

If the answer is no, that check engine light is for you.

IYKYK - you just need a microphone and this new keyboard.

A common question I get: "what is the difference between a Skill and an Agent?" 

I have built 80+ AI agents for Business across GTM, Product, Engineering, etc. 

I built a guide to help - comment and I will send it to you.. ok back to the program..
 
Agents are like employees in departments: Sales, Marketing, CS. 

Vertical. Domain-specific. They own a function and make decisions.
 
Skills are like apps those employees use: horizontal, reusable across departments, any agent can pick them up.
 
Tools let agents act. 

Skills provide the knowledge of how and when to act: including your company-specific context.
 
That last part is the whole game.
 
Because raw capability is not competence.
 
Your AI can call APIs, analyze data, generate content, and orchestrate workflows. 

That's capability. 

But does it know your team's specific 8-step deal qualification process? 

Does it know anything over $50K hits Deal Desk? 

Does it know the naming conventions, the approval chains, the compliance requirements?
 
That's competence. And that's what skills provide.
 
The architecture is elegant:
 
• Agents carry full context constantly (expensive, bloated)
• Skills load progressively — metadata at startup (~100 tokens), full instructions when activated, resources only when needed
• One skill serves many agents
• Agents call skills. Skills can invoke agents. Bidirectional.
 
No single agent carries all that procedural knowledge. They just know what skills exist and call them when needed.
 
If you're building simple bots, tools are enough. 

If you're building digital employees, you need skills. 

The bottleneck is never whether the agent can perform an action. 

It's whether the agent knows YOUR specific process for performing it correctly.
 
Agents are the who. Skills are the how.
 
Stop building capable agents. Start building competent ones.
 
What's the biggest gap between what your AI agents can do and what they actually do well? Drop it below.

The opportunity is massive for the builders of agents in back office, GTM and may other places in business. 

Gonna be a fun next couple of years! 

Let’s cook! 👨‍🍳

A CEO told me last week he'd never tried Claude Code.
 
"That's for technical people, right?"
 
He uses AI every day. And he's been scrolling past the most powerful tool in his stack because of how it was positioned.
 
He's not alone. I hear this from revenue leaders, ops executives, and founders constantly.
 
I put an operator's guide together - let me know if you want it. 

Let me tackle this directly. 
 
Claude Code is not a code editor. It's an AI operating system.
 
The terminal is just where you type. That's it. 

Just like you type a text message to your friends or loved ones. 
 
Here's the mental model I use to explain the difference between Code and Cowork:
 
𝗖𝗼𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 is a smart contractor you hire for a day. They do great work. They leave. Next session, you re-explain everything from scratch.
 
𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲 is a full-time operator who sits at your desk every day. They remember everything. They build systems. They get better over time. Every session starts where the last one ended.
 
Same model underneath. Completely different relationship.
 
Four things make Code different. None of them require writing code.
 
1. CLAUDE.md = Your Business Operating System
  
In Cowork, every session resets. You re-explain. You re-upload. You re-establish context.
 
In Code, it's architecturally guaranteed to load. The compound effect over months is significant.
 
2. Named Agents = Your AI Team
 
Cowork sub-agents are ephemeral — one task, then gone.
 
In Code, you build agent specs. Your CMO agent knows your positioning. Your Competitive Intel agent knows your rivals and preferred format. You build it once. You refine it over time.
 
I run 90+ agents. When I need a competitive battlecard, the agent already knows everything. What used to take an hour takes 7 minutes.
 
3. Your File System Is Already There
 
Cowork works in a sandbox. Code works in your actual world.
 
"Read the pipeline export in Downloads and tell me which deals are at risk this quarter."
 
You type that. It reads it. No upload prep. No copy-paste. No re-explaining where things live.
 
This sounds minor until you've done the upload dance three times in one week.
 
4. Automation That Actually Runs
 
Cowork's scheduled tasks are beta and unreliable right now. They work sometimes. You can't build a business process on "sometimes."
 
Code supports hooks, cron jobs, and full automation pipelines. 

Things I have running in production today:
 
→ Daily competitive monitoring that flags pricing changes 
→ Automated content pipeline: research → draft → review 
→ Weekly research digests from 10+ sources synthesized automatically 
→ Pipeline health alerts triggered by CRM events
 
None of those required writing code. They required describing what I wanted.
 
"But I'm not technical"
 
This isn't either/or. 

I use Cowork for quick documents and one-off tasks. 

I use Code as the operating system underneath — context, agents, automation, memory.

What Cassie Young said! 

When she talks you should 👂! 👇

Partner at Primary Venture Partners, Seasoned Enterprise CRO/CCO

🌶️🌶️ CROs, there's a GTM reckoning coming for the board room. Your board members are done rewarding your AI experimentation efforts.🌶️🌶️

The efficiency gains of the last two years were a half-truth. Sure, you trimmed the fat, but the GTM engine has been atrophying for most companies.
Here's the cold hard truth: GTM inefficiencies used to hide behind 80% SaaS margins but in the age of AI, there is nowhere left to hide. As AI compute costs eat into gross margins, you can no longer afford higher operating expenses.

In 2026 Boards will stop rewarding AI experimentation and start demanding P&L impact through the PRIME framework:
⚙️ Productivity: Is ARR/revenue per GTM head actually climbing?
📈 Retention: Are AI investments moving the needle on GRR/NRR?
💲 Investment Efficiency: Why is CAC payback still stuck at ~16 months?
🪴 Momentum: Is growth predictable and coming from a healthy mix of new and existing?
⬇️ Expense Reduction: Have you actually eliminated labor or software costs?

Most CROs use AI for "marginal gains"—better meeting summaries or slightly faster cycle times. That won't save your P&L. The winners are thinking transformationally:

🟢 Jeanne DeWitt Grosser's team at Vercel replaced a 10-person inbound SDR team with one "Lead Agent"
🟢 Kyle Norton's team at Owner.com 2x'ed productivity per rep with their AI operating system
🟢 Matt Braley’s team at EliseAI had three AEs close $50M in new ARR by supercharging their talent with AI infrastructure
🟢 Amanda Kahlow and the 1mind team use the same AI Superhumans they sell to fuel their own growth, comfortably surpassing the age-old T2D3 growth thresholds with a <6-month CAC payback

PRIME has become our non-negotiable for GTM investing, and it needs to be yours for GTM operating. Are you ready to be held accountable for the P&L? 👀👀

Spent an hour watching 🚀 Victor Adefuye run 3 crazy workflows in Claude Cowork and its freakin rad. 

Want to see it? Comment below.

Victor has been in GTM enablement for over a decade. 5 years as an MD at Winning by Design. 

Teaching reps how to write emails, run discovery, execute MEDDPICC. 

The guy knows what "good" looks like better than almost anyone.Then Cowork dropped. 

And he turned 10 years of enablement IP into AI agents.

Here's what he showed my man Jonathan M Kvarfordt, MBA live on the GTM AI Podcast .

He pointed Cowork at 360 conference leads and typed 3 sentences. Cowork spun up 15 parallel sub-agents. 

Each one independently researched a company, scored it against his ICP, and wrote personalized nurture emails that pulled from his 110-page content library. Matched by pain point.

He fed 7 sales calls into a folder. A custom MEDDPICC skill scored every single one in parallel. Individual scorecards with direct quotes and timestamps. 

Then a synthesis agent rolled up a team-wide gap analysis showing exactly where reps were weak: economic buyer, champion development, paper process.

And then came the one that broke my brain.

Victor is NOT a developer. Never has been. 

But in 2 weeks he built 7 𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗲.𝗰𝗼𝗺 automations by having a conversation with Cowork. 

It opened Make in his browser. Selected the modules. Configured connections. Wrote the prompts. One automation finds newly hired CROs every week and builds drip campaigns off the trigger. Built through chat.

He said something I can't stop thinking about: "The same training I used to give to humans and hope they would remember, I now give to AI. It's more reliable.

"That's the whole game right there. Your enablement playbook IS your AI moat. The people who spent years defining what good looks like are now the most dangerous builders in the room.

Stop prompting. Start packaging your expertise.

All 3 workflows are broken down step-by-step in my latest newsletter. Full playbook. Skill templates. MEDDPICC scoring rubrics. 

Everything you need to build these yourself this week.

Want to see it in action and get the full playbook?

-Like this post--Comment "Cowork Playbook"---Repost if you know a GTM leader who needs this

Or get it here: 𝗵𝘁𝘁𝗽𝘀://𝗹𝗻𝗸𝗱.𝗶𝗻/𝗴𝗚𝗰𝗷𝗤𝗸𝗝𝗱

Enjoy!

Enterprise AI adoption just jumped 7x in a single quarter.
 
Not 7%. Seven times.
 
JPMorgan Chase is producing investment banking decks with AI agents in 30 seconds. 

BMW is running multi-agent systems across manufacturing plants—not as a pilot. In production.
 
The chatbot era is over. Most people just haven't noticed yet.
 
Multi-agent setups handling competitive intel, content, pipeline research, and prospect analysis—coordinated, not siloed. 

And here's the thing nobody talks about in the breathless coverage:
 
The hardest part has never been the technology.
 
It's always the humans.
 
A YC startup called Trace just raised $3M on exactly this insight. Their data shows 2-3x higher agent utilization when teams design the human-AI handoff intentionally.
 
I've seen this same movie. CRM. Marketing automation. Cloud. Analytics. 

The tech always works. The org is always the bottleneck.
 
Three things I've learned the hard way building these systems:
 
→ Start with the workflow, not the tool. Map the actual process step-by-step. Find where a human adds the least value. That's where your agent goes.
 
→ Graduated autonomy is mandatory. Draft before publish. Recommend before decide. Flag before act. The leash gets longer as trust builds. Skip this step and you break things. (Ask me how I know.)
 
→ The real metric isn't task completion. It's time-to-decision. My agent system doesn't replace strategic analysis—it eliminates the 4-6 hours of research that used to happen before the analysis. The human still decides. Just faster, with better inputs.
 
Gartner says 40% of enterprise apps will have embedded AI agents by end of 2026. 

In September 2025, that number was 5%.
 
The companies that spent 2025 experimenting are now operationalizing. 

The companies that spent 2025 watching are now scrambling.
 
That gap compounds every quarter.
 
What's your first workflow you'd hand to an agent?

What would you attempt to do if you knew you would not fail?

Important question to ask yourself especially with all the opportunity right now. 

State your goal, go achieve it. 

Regardless of the outcome you have succeeded. 

The outcome is always learning, experience, connections, and many things you would have never accomplished without going for it.

AI has changed from a chat back and forth to a coworker.. catch up on everything that happened this week 👇

Open article: The Week AI Became Your Coworker by open.substack.com

View newsletter: GTM AI Podcast & Newsletter

Open article: 3/6/26: This Founder Tried Every AI SDR. They All Failed. What He Built Instead Converts at 90% Open Rates. by Jonathan M Kvarfordt, MBA • 4 min read

3/6/26: This Founder Tried Every AI SDR. They All Failed. What He Built Instead Converts at 90% Open Rates.

They said ideas are cheap and execution is king. AI has flipped that for the most part.

OpenAI is a $730 billion company doing what every $730 billion company eventually does.
 
Abandoning the product that made it famous to protect the product that actually makes money.
 
ChatGPT's web traffic share dropped from 86.7% to 64.5% in twelve months. 

Google Gemini went from 5.7% to 21.5% over the same period. 

DeepSeek is matching GPT-5 performance at 1/30th the cost.
 
When the commodity version of your product is 97% as good and nearly free, you don't have a product problem. 

You have a business model problem.
 
Meanwhile, the numbers on the enterprise side are going in the opposite direction:
 
→ Codex crossed 1.5M weekly active users with 20x growth since August 2025 
→ Enterprise seats grew 9x year over year 
→ 92% of Fortune 500 companies are using ChatGPT products
 
Revenue per enterprise user dwarfs consumer subscriptions. 

Switching costs are orders of magnitude higher. 

And the customer who has Codex embedded in their engineering workflow doesn't cancel because a cheaper model exists.
 
Fidji Simo ran Instacart. She's been inside brutal unit economics, where every order can lose money if you're not obsessive about the math. She knows exactly what "the consumer unit economics are breaking" looks like from the inside.
 
So she told the all-hands: stop chasing side quests. Go win where it matters.
 
That's the right call. But it comes with a sentence nobody's saying:
 
OpenAI's $280 billion revenue target by 2030 requires consumer subscriptions at $20/month to become the foundation of an enterprise infrastructure play. 

Those are different companies. 

The mission was AGI for humanity. 

The strategy is Codex for Fortune 500 engineering teams.
 
You can run both narratives for a while. Eventually the spreadsheet picks one.
 
The interesting question isn't whether enterprise AI is the better business (it obviously is).
 
It's whether OpenAI gets there before Anthropic locks up enough Fortune 500 contracts to make the race irrelevant against a projected $143 billion in cumulative losses and a market that's compressing faster than anyone expected.
 
That's not a rhetorical question. It's the actual race.

Ryan Staley

I help Chief Revenue Officers & Sales Professionals Leverage AI to work 10 hours less weekly and 2x performance. Follow for cutting-edge cheat codes, prompts, and workflows🎙Scale Up Show Host🔥$0→$30M ARR in 5.5 yrs

Over the last decade, I’ve grown a division from 0-$30M ARR with 4 Sales People and have upskilled over 2,500 GTM executives on AI, Enterprise Sales and GTM Strategy  .

My mission is to inspire 1 million Go To Market Executives to work less and sell more through becoming Superhuman with Artificial Intelligence.

I help revenue leaders transform their teams by acquiring AI skills to escape the operational grind, and accelerate topline revenue.

I’m the founder of Whale Boss and The Scale Up Show.

My portfolio:

→ I’m the Founder of Whale Boss, an AI Sales & Marketing consulting and skill transformation company
→ I’m the Founder of the Scale Up Show, Top 1% Global Podcast
→ I teach Executives, Sales & Marketing teams to implement tools like ChatGPT, Copilot, Claude, etc.   
→ I provide Chief AI Officer Advisory services for human capital.  


My results:

→0-$30M without funding, marketing or SDRs with only 4 Sales people
→Identified and implemented over 500 AI use cases (internally and externally)
→Taught over 800 CROs proprietary selling strategy and tactical execution
→Consulted over 40 Technology companies on custom revenue growth strategies.  
→Voted as a TOP global AI thought leader, Gartner Ambassador & Sales Assembly thought leader. 


If you want to learn more on how to become Superhuman, you can join my newsletter.
⇒ https://superhumanrevenue.beehiiv.com/


If you want to explore AI skill transformation for your organization or Team, apply for an AI Consult.  
=> https://calendly.com/ryanstaleywss/introductory-call-with-ryan-staley-from-whale-boss


Youtube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFGndSHN4KkE89kUP74U7Qg

Podcast-https://ryanstaley.io/podcast/

X-https://x.com/Ryan_Staley1

Podcast Host

I deconstruct how the top SAAS CEOs in the world grow their companies repeatedly and predictably.  

This show has featured Startup and Billion Dollar Founders, Best Selling Authors, and the World’s Top Sales and Marketing Experts like Terry Jones (Founder of Travelocity and Chairman of Kayak),  Andrew Gazdecki (Founder of Microacquire), Harpaul Sambhi (Founder of Magical with a previous exit to Linkedin) and many more.

Hot take: The most underrated AI tool right now isn't a model.

It's a browser extension.

Claude Chrome extension works really well and I expect this to continue to increase in value.

I know that sounds ridiculous.
Browser extensions have been slow, buggy, and frustrating. Most people have written them off.


But here's what happened when I stopped ignoring Claude's Chrome extension:


I built a complete inventory of every AI assistant and agent I've created across ALL platforms in 15 minutes.


This would have taken me 2 hours of manual copying, pasting, and formatting.


And here's why this matters more than you think:


If you've been building AI systems for the past year, you probably have agents scattered across 3 to 5 platforms with no central view of what exists.


That's not an AI strategy. That's digital hoarding.

The extension handled the tedious part. Pulled the data, organized it, formatted it cleanly.


Will these tools get better? Absolutely.


But RIGHT NOW, they already work for the unglamorous work that actually matters. Data transfer. Organization. Structuring information across platforms.


The flashy stuff gets the attention.
The operational stuff gets the results.


What hidden tool has surprised you lately?

Founder & CEO, Whale Boss | Demystifying AI Agents | Helping revenue leaders 2x team results through AI Led GTM | Trusted by $50M-$20B PE-backed and Publicly Traded Companies | AI ROI for your team in 60 days

I just watched a 2.5 hour interview that changed how I see the next 3 years. And what he said should make every business leader stop and pay attention.

Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, on the Dwarkesh Podcast. 

Here's the part that hit me hardest:

There are TWO exponentials happening right now. Not one. 

The first is the capability curve. Models getting smarter at research speed. 

The second is economic diffusion. How fast businesses actually ADOPT and deploy AI. Both are fast. Neither is instant. And there's a GAP between them. 

That gap is where careers are being made or destroyed RIGHT NOW. Dario put a number on AGI. 1-3 years for most knowledge work. 90% confidence within a decade. 


He said software engineering gets fully automated FIRST because code is verifiable. It works or it doesn't. But every function is next. Sales. Marketing. Operations. Finance. Strategy. 

The question isn't whether AI will transform your organization. That's settled. 

The question is whether YOU close the gap between what's possible and what your teams are actually doing. 

Anthropic went from $0 to $9-10 BILLION in revenue in 3 years. 

10x growth per year. 
That's not hype. 
That's the market screaming that AI delivers real value. 

I've been implementing AI across leadership teams for 3 years now with 3,100+ executives. 

The pattern is clear. 

The leaders who move during the gap between capability and adoption don't just win. 

They make it nearly impossible for competitors to catch up. 

Whether you're a CEO setting direction, a VP running a division, or a Director leading a team of 15, the window is the same. 


NOTE: I pulled the key visuals and takeaways from the full 2.5 hours so you don't have to watch it all. Link in comments. Where do you think your organization sits on the adoption curve right now?

AGI Transition Strategy

What if the "ruthless" ElevenLabs quota model is actually the most HUMANE way to run a sales team?


Hear me out.


Right now, most sales orgs carry 50+ reps. Half of them miss quota. 

They grind through manual research, data entry, and admin work that has nothing to do with selling.


They burn out. They churn. They blame enablement. Leadership blames them.


Everyone loses.


ElevenLabs flipped the script. 

Micro-teams of 5-10. AI handles the grunt work. 
Reps focus on what they were actually hired to do.

The result? 80% quota attainment.


And if you hit your number? 
You get paid MORE because there are fewer people splitting the pie.


This is the part nobody talks about with AI transformation.


It's not about replacing people.
It's about FREEING the right people to do their best work and paying them what they're actually worth.


The old model punishes A-players by surrounding them with B and C-players who drag down performance, culture, and comp pools.


The new model? Only A-players. Only selling. Only winning.


NOTE: After working with 3,100+ executives on AI transformation, the biggest resistance isn't from reps. It's from leaders who built their identity around managing large teams.


Smaller team = less perceived power.


But the CROs who get over that ego hurdle?


They're the ones building the future.


Would you rather manage 50 reps at 40% attainment or 10 reps at 80%?

Controversial take: The CROs and CMOs who work the MOST hours are often the worst performers.

I know. That's uncomfortable.

But after 23 years in GTM and 3 years of working with 3000+ revenue leaders across Public Traded and PE-backed SaaS, I can't unsee the pattern.

The leaders grinding 80-hour weeks aren't outperforming anyone. They're too exhausted to realize their strategy stopped working 6 weeks ago.
I've been there myself.

I used to wear exhaustion like proof I was committed. 70-hour weeks. Always on. Always grinding. I thought that's what it took to build Whale Boss while delivering for clients.

Then I hit a wall where I couldn't see what was obvious. I was making slower decisions. Recycling old ideas. Running on fumes and calling it discipline.

The moment I started treating rest as a STRATEGIC INPUT instead of a reward, everything changed.

My content got sharper. My client sessions got better. I started seeing patterns in AI implementation I'd been too fried to notice.

Think about Tom Brady.

He didn't become the GOAT by outworking everyone in the weight room. He became the GOAT by obsessing over recovery, nutrition, rest, and how he treated his body. While other quarterbacks were breaking down at 35, Brady played 4-5 years LONGER and at a HIGHER level than his peers.

That wasn't luck. That was a strategic decision to optimize for longevity and peak performance instead of brute force.

Revenue leadership is the same game.

The executives I train who ruthlessly protect recovery time?


They see market shifts faster.
They make pricing decisions with conviction instead of desperation.
They retain their best people because burned-out leaders create burned-out teams.


One CRO told me something I'll never forget:
"I made more strategic progress in 10 days off than I did in the 6 months before. Because I finally had the space to THINK instead of just REACT."

Your brain isn't a machine that performs better with more runtime.
It's a system that performs better with RECOVERY CYCLES.

The same way PE firms don't expect compound returns without reinvestment, you can't expect compound performance without rest.

NOTE: The executives who survive and thrive across multiple PE cycles aren't superhuman. They're the Tom Brady's of leadership. They figured out that strategic rest isn't soft. It's the hardest competitive edge to copy.

What's your actual recovery strategy right now? Or are you still telling yourself you'll rest after this quarter?

Canary in the coal mine, here’s why this happened…


This is going to be common moving forward if you don’t take this seriously.

I repeat, if you don’t adapt and AI upskill, companies you work for will adapt for you.

If you don’t adapt your workforce to be AI unskilled you will be disrupted by companies like this that will put you out of business.



This is an exact quote from the CEO.

“we're not making this decision because we're in trouble. our business is strong. gross profit continues to grow, we continue to serve more and more customers, and profitability is improving. but something has changed. we're already seeing that the intelligence tools we’re creating and using, paired with smaller and flatter teams, are enabling a new way of working which fundamentally changes what it means to build and run a company. and that's accelerating rapidly.”

I took inventory of every AI agent and assistant I've built for my business.

Here's a some of what my "Agent/Assistant org chart" looks like:

Operating Systems:
• CEO OS (strategy, planning, reviews)
• Sales OS (pipeline, deal coaching, forecasting)
• Product OS (curriculum, delivery, design)

C-Suite Agents:
• Chief Counsel (legal review, contracts)
• CHRO (hiring, candidate scoring, team design)
• CMO (Content, Creative, Strategy, team design)

Sales:
• Deal Coach with Next Best Action
• Research assistant

Productivity:
• Email management
• Proposal design

Marketing:
• LinkedIn content teammate

Product:
• Program design
• Agent designer
• Customer artifact designer

That's 15 agents across 6 functions. Built in 3 months. No engineering team. No dev budget.

Here's what I've learned:

The mistake most people make with AI agents is building them one at a time, like isolated tools.

The unlock is designing them like an organization.

Just like a company has:
→ Leadership (Operating Systems)
→ Departments (Sales, Marketing, Product)
→ Communication layers (how agents share context)
→ Reporting structure (which agent leads which workflow)

When you architect assistants or agents as a system instead of individual tools, every new agent you add makes the whole thing more powerful.

Not additive. Multiplicative.

The question for every leader right now:

What does YOUR agent org chart look like?

If the answer is "we don't have one" — that's your biggest AI blind spot.

No one is talking about the number one leadership skill needed for 2026 and beyond.

The difference in managing agents vs. people. This framework unlocks a 10-100x differential in terms of results when working with agents. 

Here’s how to think differently

Scarcity Management (Human Labor)

- You delegate carefully because every task you assign costs real capacity
- You prioritize ruthlessly — your team can only do 3-5 things well
- You write minimal specs because the human fills in gaps with judgment and context
- You manage by exception because you can't review everything
- You accept "good enough" because rework costs real time from real people
- You batch work into projects because coordination overhead is high



Abundance Management (Agentic AI)

- You can delegate liberally because spinning up another agent costs nearly nothing
- You can pursue parallel paths — run 5 approaches simultaneously and pick the best
- You write comprehensive specs because thoroughness directly improves output quality, and the agent will actually read all 10 pages
- You can review everything because the agent can also generate its own quality checks
- You can decompose into micro-tasks because coordination overhead is low



Once I dove into this and actually gave myself some space in to think about what's possible, I was really shocked with how different the two worlds are and how much of a change there's going to need to happen at a leadership level to be able to work with both continuously. 

Anything I missed or you see as an opportunity?

taplio

The Battle

Jonathan Moss

Ryan Staley

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreJonathan Moss's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreRyan Staley's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Jonathan Moss

Ryan Staley

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);}Jonathan Moss's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreRyan Staley's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreJonathan Moss's LinkedIn Performance