There are two ways for Insurance Companies, Banks, Private Equity firms, MGAs, and insurtechs to approach complex risk in 2025:

1. Rely on generic solutions, potentially overlooking critical gaps.
2. Partner with specialized expertise that delivers clarity and tailored protection.

Many sit in the first category, often underserved by mega-brokers.

Your institution has unique strengths and ambitions. 

But is your risk management truly aligned? 

Or are you unknowingly exposed due to:

–  Coverage gaps hidden in the fine print?

–  Lack of access to sophisticated global markets?

–  Decisions made without credible peer data or advanced analytics?

–  Impersonal service that doesn’t grasp your specific operational realities?

The bigger problem?

You're leaving strategic advantage on the table and potentially facing significant financial or reputational risk down the line.

The solution?

Transform your risk management from a necessary cost center into a strategic asset through a bespoke, expert-driven partnership.

That’s my focus at LION Specialty.

My approach combines:

– Penetrating technical analysis honed by deep experience (including handling complex Fortune 100 accounts) to uncover what others miss.

– Global market access (London, Bermuda) and perspective, crafting solutions beyond standard domestic offerings.

– Process mastery & advanced analytics delivering clarity and confidence, not complexity.

– Authentic human connection, building partnerships that thrive.

(informed partly by my wellness background as a Pilates instructor… sustainable success requires balance)

–  Are you serious about closing critical coverage gaps?

–  Are you ready for risk management bespoke to your institution's needs?

–  Is it time for a partner who brings both sophisticated expertise and a refreshingly collaborative approach?

Let's connect and explore how we can elevate your strategy together.

Natasha Kiemnec

The SEC doesn't always send a lawsuit.
Sometimes they just ask for a "voluntary" interview.


That "voluntary" interview cost my client $250,000 in legal fees.

They received a request for documents. Not a subpoena. Not a Wells Notice. Just a request.

They hired top-tier counsel to respond (as they should).

They sent the bill to their insurer.

The Denial:
"This is not a Claim. A Claim is defined as a written demand for monetary or non-monetary relief. This is just a request for information."

Technically, the carrier was right.
The standard policy was silent on "inquiries."
The client paid the $250k out of pocket.

The Architect Solution:
We don't use standard definitions.
We expanded the definition of "Claim" to include "Pre-Claim Inquiries."

Now, when the regulators "just have a few questions," the policy responds.
It pays for the lawyers to answer those questions correctly—before they turn into a lawsuit.

If you wait for the subpoena, you’ve waited too long.
Your coverage needs to start when the risk starts.

Does your policy cover "Pre-Claim Inquiries" or just "Claims"?

One definition is worth $250k.

DM me "INQUIRY" and I'll check your language.

P.S. Ever been to Mexico City? One of the coolest spots I’ve frequented the last few years! It’s a vibe.

Natasha I.  Kiemnec, ARM

Managing Partner & Co-founder of LION Specialty | Global Financial Institutions & Private Equity Broker | Classical Certified Pilates Instructor

No alternative text description for this image

Today, I turn 38. 

I tell you this not because I want wishes of happy birthday but because each year on my birthday I go through successes,  “experiences”, and reflections of my prior year, so I thought I’d share a few here.

1. My parents being a plane ride away is too far. The older they get the more I realize how precious time is with them. Try to always be as kind and gentle with them as you can. 

2. Often in life we are blinded by our own bias. The thing you want most - fitness, that relationship, that money whatever it is, with some simple observation really isn’t that hard to achieve. Don’t over complicate. 

3. Relationships (with most people) are a balance of understanding. General frustration comes from a lack of feeling seen or understood. Patience, grace and understanding go along way. 

4. Be kind - I often watch people be unkind for no reason. 

5. Tale as old as time but work hard. A lot of struggle can be removed from simply putting your head down, keeping your mouth shut, and getting the work done. 

6. My mom used to always tell me to just start. Whenever I was stressed out and overwhelmed - just start. It’s still applicable now. 

7. To those who help - a partner, a coworker, an employee, a family member - you can’t be appreciative and grateful enough. There truly isn’t an end to being thankful. 

8. Have a passion that isn’t work. 

9. Get outside - take breaks. A 20 minute walk always helps. 

10. Always be learning. 

What reflections have you had on birthdays or during moments of pause?

What makes someone great?


The book, Good to Great, would tell you it’s disciplined people making consistent, focused decisions over time. 

In light of the Olympics, Lindsey Vonn has said, you have to believe in yourself when no one else does. You can give up, give in, or give it all you’ve got. 

The themes are consistent
Discipline
Focus
Internal drive 

For me, these have always been where I found my success. 

The competition with myself to be the best. 

It’s amazing what you find in the hours of pushing yourself. 

In a marathon
Hours of studying
Early mornings at the gym 
Late nights at the office 

If you’ve been there, you know what I’m talking about…

The one other thing I’ve unexpectedly found to bring that same drive in life, is love. 

In light of Valentine’s Day, a shout out to my fiancé taking his third bar exam coming up in a week. 

Not because he didn’t pass the first two but because he’s going to be barred in the whole country soon (except Louisiana - haha don’t worry I don’t want to move there next)

The drive, effort, dedication, commitment that he puts into his work makes me want to find the next level within…

So I’d add admiration and love for someone to that list of reasons to find a third or fourth gear in yourself. 

While it was yesterday, I thought I needed something more than insurance humor in celebration of the day. Happy Valentine’s!

So incredibly proud of you David Gutierrez ❤️

What’s your take on what makes people great?

Your $5M policy is not actually $5M.


Unless you structured it correctly.

Most D&O policies are "eroding limits."
Every dollar spent on lawyers reduces the limit available for the settlement.

If you spend $2M defending a frivolous lawsuit...
You only have $3M left to pay the judgment.

The lawyers get paid first. You get paid last.

We structure defense costs outside the limit, in addition to, or specific sub limits outside the limit. 

This means the insurance company pays for the defense or other limits in addition to the policy limit.

Your $5M limit remains fully intact for settlements and judgments.

Why this matters:
In a complex securities claim, defense costs can easily hit $500k-$1M before you even get to a motion to dismiss.

If that money comes out of your limit, you are underinsured.

If it sits outside, you have a dedicated war chest for the fight.

Don't let your legal bills eat your protection.

Check your declarations page. Does it say "Defense Costs Included" or "Defense Costs in Addition"?

What other sublimits are included, if any?

If it says "Included," you have less coverage than you think.

DM me "LIMITS" and I'll review it for you.

The easiest way for a carrier to deny a $10M claim is not a coverage exclusion.


It is a calendar error.

"Late Notice" is the silent killer of D&O claims.
Most policies require you to notify the carrier "as soon as practicable" or within a specific window (30-60 days).

But what counts as a claim?
Is it a lawsuit? A demand letter? A verbal threat?

If your General Counsel gets a letter on January 1st, handles it internally, and then notifies the broker on March 1st...
You might be denied. Entirely.
Not because the claim wasn't covered.
But because you missed the window.

The LION Process:

We don't leave "Notice" to chance.

1. The Definition Trigger
We negotiate the definition of "Claim" so it triggers only when a written demand is received by the Risk Manager or General Counsel—not just any employee. This prevents a mailroom mistake from voiding your coverage.

2. The Protocol
We build a "Notice Flowchart" for your legal team before the policy binds. Everyone knows exactly who to call and when.

3. The "Laundry List"
At the end of every policy period, we notice everything. Every potential circumstance. Every rumble of thunder. We lock in coverage under the expiring limits so you start fresh.

Process beats panic.

Don't let a clerical error cost you your limit.


Does your team know exactly what triggers a notice requirement?

DM me "NOTICE" and I'll send you our protocol checklist.

The single biggest leverage point…


Time

Most brokers start the renewal process 30 days before expiration.

They flood the market with submissions. They cross their fingers. They hope for appetite.
You get daily emails asking for "just one more thing" while trying to close your quarter.

We operate on a 150-day cycle.

Day 150: The Strategy
We map out exactly where we are headed. We identify the story we need to tell before we ever open a submission file.

Day 120: The Build
We construct the submission. We test every angle of the risk narrative.

Day 90: The Approach
The carriers see our first approach now. We are reading the market, not reacting to it.

Day 60: The Options
We have your options locked down.

Day 30: The Bind
Bindable terms in hand. No drama. No surprises.

One client saw their limits jump 25% at flat premium simply because we had the runway to position them properly.

You negotiate effectively when you control the clock.

If your renewal is July 1st, we should be starting right now.

DM me "TIMELINE" and I'll share our 150-day execution roadmap.

Early in my career, I said "Yes" to everything.
Every client call. Every project. Every "quick question."

I thought availability was a competitive advantage.

I was wrong.

Overcommitment is the enemy of excellence.
If you are always available, you are never deeply focused, creative, or unique.

I learned the hard way:

You cannot manuscript a complex policy while answering emails every 5 minutes.

You cannot negotiate a difficult claim while jumping on "quick syncs."

The Pivot:
The process was developed. 
Each day had a focus throughout the week. 
Each month prepared for the next. 
Always aligning with the client’s calendar 
150 days out from expiration. 
Sunday nights were for alignment of the week. 
Fridays for policy checking. 

It felt too structured but the focus helped my alignment,
the team,
The client. 

My clients stopped getting "fast answers."
They started getting better answers. 

Structure creates the space for 
deep work, 
unique, 
creative outcomes.

And deep work is the only competitive advantage that lasts.

What is one thing you need to “structure" this week to better align the team?

Kroll just surveyed 325 PE executives about cybersecurity.

The headline number: 80% experienced hold-period cyber disruption. Average financial hit per deal: $2.1 million.

But the number that stopped me...82% of PE firms have no dedicated cybersecurity leader managing portfolio risk.

Not "could improve their approach." 
No leader. 
Period!

When Flip and I review these reports for the Friday Five, we're looking for the data point that changes how our clients think about their next renewal. 

This week had three of them.

The $77.7 billion US data center construction surge creating entirely new risk classes for carriers. 

The PE cyber governance gap that predicts whether a firm absorbs a valuation hit at exit. 

And the plaintiffs' bar expanding its litigation analytics to 1,200 additional state courts.

Three forces. 

One common thread...the institutions slowest to adapt pay the most.

We broke all of it down in this week's Boardroom Brief.

Link in comments.

Comment "BRIEF" if you want it in your inbox every Friday.

The most expensive gap in your insurance program isn't an exclusion.

It is a missing file.

Carriers deny more claims for "lack of substantiation" than for actual coverage disputes.
If you can't prove the loss, you don't get paid.

Most companies scramble to build the file after the crisis hits.
That is too late.
You are trying to find invoices and emails while your building is burning or your network is down.

The LION Process:
We build the documentation protocol before the policy binds.

1. The "Day One" Folder
We establish exactly what the adjuster will ask for.
Payroll records. Vendor contracts. Asset lists.
We keep them staged and ready.

2. The Communication Log
During a claim, every phone call needs a follow-up email.
"As we discussed..."
If it isn't written down, it didn't happen.

3. The Timeline
We map the event minute-by-minute.
"Breach detected at 4:02 PM. Counsel notified at 4:15 PM."
Precision kills ambiguity.

An adjuster's job is to ask questions.
Our job is to have the answers ready before they ask.

Is your claim file ready for an audit today?

DM me "DOCUMENT" and I'll send you our claim substantiation checklist.

The insurance industry was built for buildings that burn.

The economy runs on digital infrastructure that just stops working.

There is a trillion-dollar gap in the global insurance market.
It is called Non-Physical Damage Business Interruption (NDBI).

Most property policies require "direct physical loss or damage" to trigger coverage.
A fire. A flood. A hurricane.

But what happens when a cloud provider goes down?

What happens when a payment gateway fails?
What happens when a DNS attack takes your platform offline?

There is no "physical damage."
The servers are fine. The building is standing.
But your revenue has stopped.

Traditional policies say: "No physical damage? No claim."

You are left absorbing millions in lost revenue while paying premiums for a risk that doesn't match your reality.

We don't rely on "Property" forms for digital risks.
We build Parametric triggers and System Failure coverage that responds to the outage, not the damage.

If the network is down, the policy pays.
It doesn't matter if the server room burned down or if a software update just failed.

The loss is the same. The coverage should be too.

Does your Business Interruption policy require "physical damage" to pay?

If you are a digital business, that clause is a trap.
DM me "NDBI" and I'll review your trigger language.

Freedom of speech and press as given by this platform itself


How lucky are we to be able to have individual liberties that some only dream to have

•	Believe in who or what you wish
•	To gather with whom we wish 
•	The right to a fair trial if accused 

To get to use social media to promote

Our companies
Our ideas
Ourselves 

It’s seemingly sometimes lost on people but what a gift it really is. 

So today, I’m grateful for those who came well before this time, while many and much had to happen to get us to where we are, it was those founding fathers and first presidents who started us on this incredible path that we are on today. 

Happy Presidents’ Day

A green light in the server room does not mean your business is recovered.

But your insurance carrier might think it does.

We are seeing a dangerous trend in Cyber claims.
Carriers are cutting off Business Interruption payments the moment the "computer network" is technically restored.

They argue: "Your servers are up. The claim is over."

Your servers are up, but your business is still bleeding.
You are reconciling lost data. You are re-indexing files. You are working through a massive backlog of manual entries. You are waiting for vendors to re-certify your connections.

The "outage" is over, but the financial loss is just beginning.

We audit the definition of "Period of Restoration."

If your policy says the period ends when the "Network is Restored"... you are exposed to the post-breach drag.

We clarify the language to reference "Restoration of Business Operations to the condition that existed immediately before the breach”

This ensures the policy pays until your revenue and throughput return to pre-incident levels—not just when the IT ticket is closed.

Do not let a forensic accountant tell you when your business is back to normal.
Let the contract dictate it.

Check your Cyber policy today. Search for "Period of Restoration."

Does it say "Network" or "Operations"?

The difference is your entire Q3 profit margin.
DM me "RESTORE" and I'll review the definition.

Bankruptcy doesn't just freeze your assets.
It can freeze your insurance defense.


A portfolio company filed Chapter 11.

The directors were sued immediately for "breach of fiduciary duty."

They called the insurer to pay for their defense.

The Bankruptcy Trustee stepped in.

"That policy is an asset of the estate. You cannot deplete it to pay for legal fees."

The directors were left paying $800/hour lawyers out of their own pockets while a $5M policy sat frozen in court.

We structure "Priority of Payments" clauses into every D&O program.

This language dictates that in the event of bankruptcy, the insurer must pay the individual directors first.

The estate only gets what is left over.

We also add "Side A" DIC (Difference in Conditions) coverage that sits completely separate from the corporate balance sheet.

You don't need insurance when things are going well.

You need it when the walls are closing in.

If your policy isn't bankruptcy-proof, it’s not finished.

Does your policy have a "Priority of Payments" clause?

DM me "PRIORITY" and I'll show you where to look.

You wouldn't hire a CFO based on who has the cheapest laptop.

So why do you hire a broker based on who has the cheapest quote?

Most companies run their insurance RFP like a commodity purchase.

"Here is our data. Go get quotes. We will pick the lowest premium."

This is a trap.
You are incentivizing your broker to strip coverage to hit a price target.

The LION Process:
When you hire a broker, you are hiring a defense team.

You don't ask a heart surgeon for a discount. You ask for their success rate.

The 3 Questions You Should Ask:

1. "Who is on my team?"
Not the sales guy. The technical broker. The claims advocate. I want to see the resumes of the people protecting my balance sheet.

2. "Show me a manuscript."
Don't tell me you can improve coverage. Send me a redacted policy you wrote. Let me see the actual words you changed.

3. "Walk me through a denial."
Tell me about a claim you fought and won. If you haven't had to fight, you haven't been doing this long enough.

Stop buying insurance.
Start hiring expertise.

Are you running an RFP this year?

DM me "RFP" and I'll send you the Broker Evaluation Scorecard we wish every client used.

Five events since 2017. Combined losses from billions to trillions. Physical damage across all five: zero.

NotPetya. 
The 737 MAX grounding. 
COVID-19 shutdowns. 
The Ever Given. 
CrowdStrike.

We went line by line through the coverage implications this week. The exposure class is Non-Damage Business Interruption, and for financial institutions running digital-first operations on legacy programs, the gap between what can shut you down and what your policy actually covers is measured in trillions.

But the article that stopped me was a Law360 piece on cyber policy restoration periods.
The distinction between “operations-focused” and “network-focused” language in your period of restoration definition is outcome-determinative. 

One version covers you through the full resumption of normal business activity. The other stops the clock the moment someone reboots a server — even partially.

That’s the kind of clause that determines whether your next cyber claim pays for twelve weeks of operational drag or cuts off at week two. 

Silence in insurance is dangerous. Especially in the definitions section.

We covered all of it in this week’s Friday Five, plus a forward look at parametric capacity that could compress payout timelines from months to days.

P.S. link in comments. 

P.S.S. Part 1 of our Wednesday Intelligence miniseries on deepfakes is live. What happens when bad guys deepfake your CEO — and six questions for your next renewal. Link in comments.

A finance director joined a video call with his CFO, his CEO, and two colleagues.
None of them were real.


$25.6 million gone across 15 transactions before anyone caught it.

That was Arup, a global engineering firm, early 2024.

Attackers built real-time deepfake replicas of multiple executives on a live video conference. Convincing enough to override every instinct a trained finance professional had.

Financial institutions should pay close attention.

Your executives sit on hundreds of hours of public video and audio. 
Earnings calls, conference panels, LinkedIn clips, webinars. 

Every recording is training data for the next synthetic clone.

We just published Part 1 of our Deepfakes Miniseries in the Wednesday Intelligence. 

We mapped a deepfake loss across a typical FI insurance program, and the coverage fractures fast.

Most social engineering endorsements still require the instruction to arrive via email or written communication.

A deepfake video call? May not qualify.

Then there are the AI exclusions now spreading through D&O, E&O, and cyber forms. Broad language excluding claims "arising out of or related to artificial intelligence" can swallow a deepfake event whole. Even when the insured was the victim.

No single policy owns the full loss. And most of these wordings were written before attackers could clone your CEO's face.

We break down where the gaps hide, which carriers are already adapting, and six questions to bring to your next renewal.

Reply "DEEPFAKE" and we'll send our one-page Coverage Gap Checklist.

P.S.  this is only for those of you that are buyers of insurance!!

Your employee didn't get hacked.
They got tricked.

And your insurance policy treats those two things very differently.

A controller gets an email from the "CEO."
"Please wire $500,000 to this vendor immediately for the acquisition."
The email looks real. The tone is urgent.
The controller wires the money.

You file it under your Crime policy.
The carrier points to the "Voluntary Parting" exclusion.

"Your employee voluntarily sent the money. This wasn't theft. It was a mistake."

Or they point to the "Social Engineering" sub-limit.

"We cover this, but only up to $100,000."
You just lost $400,000.

We don't accept $100k sub-limits for the biggest risk you face.
We manuscript the definition of "Computer Fraud" to include "Social Engineering" and "Impersonation Fraud."

We stack the Crime policy limits with the Cyber policy limits to ensure you have full tower protection, not just a sliver.

If your policy penalizes you for being human, it’s the wrong policy.

Check your Crime policy today. Look for the 

"Social Engineering" endorsement.
Is it $5M or $100k?

DM me "FRAUD" and I'll review your limits.

There is a question plaintiff attorneys will ask after every data breach in 2027.
Most boards haven't even heard the premise yet.

"Did you use AI-powered security scanning tools to check your code?"

If the answer is "No," you might be negligent.

Last week, Anthropic released an AI tool that scanned production codebases and found 500+ vulnerabilities that human experts missed for 20 years.

These weren't minor glitches. They were exploitable flaws hiding in plain sight.

Traditional scanners check for "locked doors" (passwords, encryption).
AI checks for "structural weakness" (broken business logic).

We saw this with MFA.

Three years ago, Multi-Factor Authentication was "nice to have."

Today, if you don't have it, you are uninsurable.

AI code scanning is next.

When a defensive tool becomes widely available and highly effective, failing to use it stops being a "resource decision."

It becomes a "breach of fiduciary duty."

The window between discovery and exploitation is compressing from weeks to hours.
Your defense needs to move at the same speed.

Is your board asking about AI security, or are they waiting for the lawsuit?

We put together a one-page AI Security Standard-of-Care Checklist — 10 questions your board should be asking before your next renewal. 

The carrier application changes already in motion. The specific coverage intersections across cyber, tech E&O, and D&O. 

What the standard of care looks like now, not 12 months from now.

Comment CHECKLIST and I'll send it over.

Two federal courts ruled on AI and privilege the same week.

One said consumer AI destroys confidentiality. The other said AI is a tool, not a person, and work product survives.

Both issued February 10, 2026.

Here's why this matters for carriers and the institutions we serve:

In Heppner (SDNY), a defendant used the free version of Claude to draft 31 defense strategy documents without his lawyer's involvement. Judge Rakoff held that Anthropic's privacy policy, which permits data training and disclosure to regulators, destroyed any expectation of confidentiality. No privilege. No work product protection.

In Warner (E.D. Michigan), a pro se plaintiff used ChatGPT to prepare litigation materials. The court denied the defendant's request to compel those materials, holding that compelling production "would nullify work-product protection in nearly every modern drafting environment."

Same technology. Opposite conclusions. The difference came down to two things: attorney direction and platform terms.

We also dug into a 108-page bad faith report from Freeman Mathis & Gary covering 26 states. We stripped the auto cases and pulled the P&C patterns:

Safe harbors are crystallizing in Indiana and Florida 

Communication failures carry compounding penalties in Pennsylvania 

Coverage drafting precision is being rewarded across multiple jurisdictions

And a federal court allowed bad faith claims to proceed against an insurer using undisclosed AI in claims handling. If your adjusters are confirming algorithmic output rather than conducting independent investigations, the file tells that story.

Silence in insurance is dangerous. 

That applies to AI governance too.

This week's Friday Five Boardroom Brief breaks down all three developments with Monday morning action items.

Comment BRIEF if you're not on our list.

P.S. The Heppner opinion is 12 pages. The Warner order is 14. Both are worth the read if you're advising clients on AI use policies.

Follow for daily Insights to live a longer, healthier life

Over the past decade, I’ve scaled revenue and client success at three SaaS companies from $3M to $50M+ ARR, delivering 110%+ net revenue retention and top 10% NPS scores (65+).

Today, we help recruiting agency owners & Principals ($5M–$20M billings, 5–20 recruiters) land new clients from LinkedIn by becoming a trusted authority in their market. 

Our clients are busy business owners. They don’t want to be “content creators.” 

They want done-for-you exec content that lands new clients. That’s what we do.

In the past 12 months, we’ve generated $5M+ in client billings from LinkedIn by positioning recruiting agency owners as the go-to authorities in their markets.

Our methodology:
→ Revenue Growth Engine - a 3-step system perfected with 40+ founders & recruiting agencies
→ Content strategy that generates demand for contingent and retained searches (not just likes)
→ Strategic outreach to initiate conversations with your ideal clients
→ All requiring just 1.5 hours per week from busy Principals and owners

Our results:
→ 40+ owners and Principals served
→ $5M+ in client billings generated from inbound leads via LinkedIn
→ 8+ qualified inquiries per month within 90 days (average client result)
→ Doubling client pipelines in under 6 months
→ Clients include 7 and 8-figure recruiting agencies commanding $75K+ fees and securing multi-search mandates

And we're just getting started!

We help recruiting business owners who are:
→ Tired of building trust from scratch and ready for clients who arrive pre-sold
→ Reliant on a referral pipeline that has plateaued and feels unpredictable
→ Ready to turn decades of expertise into an inbound client pipeline

Ready to turn LinkedIn into your #1 growth channel?
→ Book a 25-minute strategy call: 

https://calendly.com/rohan-karunakaran-mbww/1-1-strategy-call

Rohan Karunakaran

I sat down with LinkedIn’s first Chief HR Officer, Steve Cadigan, to share a few early lessons from his time at LinkedIn - well before it became the iconic company we know today.

Two moments from the early days stuck with me:

1// The “Obama validation” moment

When President Obama visited LinkedIn’s campus in 2011, signups jumped from 1 new member/second → 2 new members/second the very next day.

2// The “IPO perception shift” moment

On the day LinkedIn went public, membership doubled again - not because of a new product feature… but because of market validation. 

Big takeaway for founders/operators: 

Trust compounds. And visibility and perception can accelerate adoption as much as  product. In both earlier and mature stages of growth. 

Follow for the full episode dropping Friday !

CEO at Frontier | Podcast host at Founder-Led 🎙️

Most people think LinkedIn is a content platform.

It’s not.

It’s a trust layer built on top of a professional graph.

You’re told to “post content,” “build a personal brand,” “grow your network.”

But what LinkedIn actually does is simpler:

It’s where buyers decide who to call - before you know they’re looking.

Picture this:

→ A CEO has a critical hire
→ They ask their network for search firm recommendations
→ Three names come back
 → Before picking up the phone, they open LinkedIn
 → They scroll each profile and last 10 posts

One has nothing. Maybe a reshare from 2023.
The next has generic “we’re hiring” updates.

The third has sharp, specific insights about executive hiring in their exact vertical.

Who do you think gets the first call?

Not because they’re better. 

But because they compressed five trust-building conversations into a 90-second scroll.

That’s what this platform is: a credibility compressor.

It shrinks the time it takes for someone to decide:
 “They’re real.”
 “They’re sharp.”
 “They understand this market.”

Your posts aren’t the product. Reduced uncertainty is the product.

That's what people buy. 

The firms we work with aren’t trying to become creators. They’re bringing their offline reputation online. 

The result isn’t followers. It’s people arriving warm and somewhat pre-sold. It’s skipping the "five-call trust tour".

Most content on LinkedIn is noise. Which is exactly why specific, experience-based signal cuts through.

The bar is on the floor, especially for search firms. Now is the time to own your market.

If you're a search firm owner looking to grow your warm network through trust-building content, shoot me a DM. Happy to share what we're seeing work right now.

H/T ✍🏻 Chengeer Lee for inspiring this post 🙌

I asked 30 recruiting firm owners what stops them from posting on LinkedIn. Here's what they said:

"I don't have time " -14 recruiters
"I don't know what to write about" - 10 recruiters
"I'm afraid of sounding cringe" - 6 recruiters

All three are valid and totally solvable.

(1) "I don't have time"

You’re running 6 - 8 active searches. Managing clients. Sourcing. Putting out fires.

But part of the reason you’re this busy is because every new prospect needs 4-5 conversations before they decide to work with you. 

Good content accelerates trust. It reduces the amount of "selling" you have to do on every call, taking pressure off you and your team's calendar.

And the ROI on energy is REAL when people show up more bought-in on the first call. Calls just feel more fun!

(2) "I don't know what to write about"

• You convinced a CEO not to make a bad hire last week.
• You explained why retained is better than contingent
• You handled the same candidate objection for the fifth time.

THAT's the content.

You don't have an idea problem.  You have an extraction and packaging problem. 

The insights are already in your call recordings and inbox.

(3) "I'm afraid of sounding cringe"

This one keeps the best recruiters quiet.

You've seen the broetry. The humble brags. The "I'm thrilled to announce" posts. And you want no part of it.

Good. Neither do your prospects.

They want someone who sounds like they've actually placed 200+ executives. That's you. The fear of sounding cringe is actually a sign you have real experience and want to take the same care to package and present it online. 

The ones who pushed through? They’re booking 10+ meetings per month from LinkedIn. 

DM me and I'll show you screenshots :) 

Everyone who posts consistently felt cringe at first. They just decided being of service and growing their business was more important than playing it safe (spoiler: "playing it safe" is actually riskier long-term). 

If you wait until it feels comfortable, you’ll never start.

---

Here’s the truth:

It’s not a time problem.
It’s not an ideas problem.
It’s not an authenticity problem.

It’s a systems problem.

Most recruiting firm owners try LinkedIn casually - no framework, no rhythm, no one helping them distill what they already know.

Then they don't see any traction and it fizzles out. 

I can confirm with data: the firms driving 8+ qualified convos per month aren’t more established or “better at content.”

They spend 1 hour a week talking through what they already know.

A system handles the rest. 

Be honest. How many weeks has it been since your last post?

LinkedIn's first Chief HR Officer, Steve Cadigan, dropped this insight during our conversation and I keep coming back to it:

The companies winning right now aren’t the ones with the most resources or experience. 

They’re the ones who’ve learned to get out of their own way.

Two shifts he’s seeing:

1// Command-and-control is breaking

The most valuable companies are being built by smaller, faster, less hierarchical teams, where decisions happen close to the work, not at the top of the org chart.

2// Tenure is being replaced by 'rate of learning'

The strongest organizations are optimizing for rate of learning -  bringing in people who challenge legacy thinking and make better decisions faster.

AI is the obvious catalyst here. When the cost of intelligence and experimenting drops and the pace of change spikes, the advantage shifts to orgs that can adapt fastest.

Tesla is a clear example. Worth more than Toyota, Ford, GM, and Hyundai combined.

Not because they have more experience. Because investors believe they can out-innovate the incumbents.

Full episode in the comments below 👇

Just reviewed a recruiter's LinkedIn profile.

$150M org. 7,000+ employees. EY Entrepreneur of the Year.

Her content? Mostly podcast promos and company updates.

Great for brand awareness. But ineffective at building deeper trust, familiarity, and consideration with potential clients. 

This is the gap I keep seeing with search firm owners. 

Incredible operators. Hundreds of placements. Decades of pattern recognition.

But their content stays surface-level and could be written by anyone else. 

The stuff that would make a CEO or hiring manager stop scrolling:

- How you assess leadership talent differently  
- Why most retained searches stall at the same point 
- What separates firms that fill in 45 days vs. 120+

That’s the stuff that builds authority between conversations.

Educational content does something brand content can't - it makes a prospect feel understood before you've ever spoken. 

You want to 'get in their head' with how specifically you speak to the issues they're facing and how you'd solve them. 

Especially in exec search, where your average retainer is $100K+, arriving pre-trusted changes the sales cycle.

It's the difference between a 5-call trust tour and a 1-call close.

Most firms are sitting on decades of placement insight that never leaves the founder's brain. 

HUGE miss IMO. 

If you run a search firm and want to turn what you already know into inbound demand — DM me. Happy to share what we’re seeing work.

We're taught to chase achievement.

No one teaches us how to expand consciousness.

I came across this 2x2 and it stuck with me because it maps the relationship between the two - and how they reinforce each other.

And by consciousness, I mean self-awareness - the degree to which we’re awake to our patterns, motivations, and deeper purpose.

→ Playing the game - low agency, low consciousness. Running default scripts.

→ Winning the game - high agency, low consciousness Achievement driven by ego or fear.

→ Escaping the game - high consciousness, low agency. Insightful… but not impactful.

→ Evolving the game - high agency, high consciousness. Aligned and effective.

In my own life, breaking points - a stressful work environment and a relationship ending - forced an upgrade in consciousness

For some it's burnout, financial pressure, or a health scare - the universe giving us a shake toward a more joyful and aligned path. If we choose to listen. 

A disruption that asks: Is this actually aligned?

“Evolving the game” became a useful decision filter for me:

• Work with people I genuinely respect and enjoy
• Choose a lane that feels energizing, not draining
• Work in my 'zone of genius', delegate the rest where possible

Also, the path isn’t linear. For me, business stability came first. Consciousness expanded later.

Only then did I have the courage to step into the unknown and choose more aligned work.

Others may begin highly self-aware - and later build agency through action.

It's also easy to drift between quadrants. Staying in the “Evolving the Game” mindset isn’t automatic - it requires regular practice and commitment. 

Curious - does this framework resonate with you? Where do you see yourself on the map?

taplio

The Battle

Natasha Kiemnec

Rohan Karunakaran

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreNatasha Kiemnec's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreRohan Karunakaran's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Natasha Kiemnec

Rohan Karunakaran

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);}Natasha Kiemnec's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreRohan Karunakaran's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreNatasha Kiemnec's LinkedIn Performance