Get leads, not likes | GM @ Taplio | Founder @ Anser | ex @Ledger | Relentlessly building in Marketing and Tech

I’ve spent over 20 years building and scaling teams across product, growth, tech and operations.

Today, I lead the Social Selling Platforms BU at lemlist (Taplio and Tweet Hunter), where I focus on turning startup momentum into repeatable, scalable systems.

Over the years, I’ve helped founders structure leadership teams, create alignment between product and growth, and scale operations without killing velocity.

I occasionally advise early-stage companies making that leap from startup to scaleup—particularly when growth outpaces structure.

If you’re building a fast-growing company and need perspective on scaling people, process, or focus, feel free to reach out.

Patrice Orenes-Lerma

Stop asking employees to “post on LinkedIn”.

It never works.

They’re busy.
They don’t know what to say.
And the moment you push too hard, it feels fake.

So here’s a better way:

Launch employee advocacy in 30 days.

With 3 to 5 employees.

And without asking for anyone’s LinkedIn password.

The goal is simple:

Stop using the company page as a megaphone.

Start using employees as the distribution engine.

This guide breaks it down into 4 phases:

Days 1 to 7
Pick 3 to 5 employees and set a secure ghostwriting workflow.

Days 8 to 14
Build a month of content that sounds like them, without stealing their time.

Days 15 to 21
Go live and win distribution with a daily 10 minute engagement routine.

Days 22 to 30
Double down on what works, repurpose winners, and scale to more employees.

If you’re stuck at “we should do employee advocacy” but it never ships...

This is the playbook.

Want the guide?

Comment “launchpad” and I’ll send it.

General Manager @ Taplio / Tweet Hunter | Helping startups scale into structured, high-performing organizations

Most companies treat LinkedIn like a loudspeaker.

Blast announcements.
Hope for reach.
Wonder why it's dead on arrival.

Here's the problem: nobody cares what a brand says. 

People care what people say.

But forcing employees to post won't fix it.
They're not marketers. They have better things to do.
Push too hard, and it backfires. Feels forced, turns fake, nobody wins.

So, skip the ask. Build a small squad. Pick a few who actually want in. Give them real support, not a pile of "brand guidelines."

Set up ghostwriting that feels like them, not HR. Make content creation fast, painless, invisible. No passwords. No policing.

Let them own their voice. Run a tight, simple process, batch what works, ditch what doesn't. Scale only after it clicks.

The result: humans speak, people listen, reach grows.

Brands don't go viral. People do.

🤫 comment "secret" and I'll send you the secret 30 day employee advicacy launchpad everyone is looking for

No alternative text description for this image

This week I spoke with a user who made $500k from LinkedIn with 2 000 followers.
The method is stupidly simple.

No audience.
No virality.
No personal brand.

This works for one reason.

He writes for one buyer.

A B2B founder selling a high-ticket service.
Long sales cycle.
Quiet buyers.

Every post follows the same rules.

One post.
One person.
One problem.

No teaching.
No frameworks.
No thought leadership.

Just situations the buyer already lives.

Before publishing, there's only one question:
Would this person want to talk to me after reading this?

If not, it doesn't go out.

Most posts get 10–15 likes.

That’s the signal.

The right people don't engage.
They save.
They come back weeks later.

Then they DM.

To put this in place and stay consistent, he used the Stupidly Simple Content System.

That’s how $500k happens with 2k followers.

Comment "stupid" and I'll send you the Stupidly Simple Content System !

P.S.: Bonus, a picture of me because I can't wait to be on the slopes

Everyone says they want to win on LinkedIn.

Almost nobody sticks around long enough for anyone to notice.

Not because they're lazy. Not because LinkedIn is stacked against them.

They just build these over-complicated systems that collapse the second real work or life gets in the way.

Week one, they're possessed. 
Posting every day. 
Obsessing over what time works best. Chasing some mythical algorithm secret that lives in a podcast from 2021.

Week two, reality hits. Work gets busy. Ideas disappear. Suddenly, LinkedIn feels like another job with no upside.

By week three, they're ghosts.

Here's the truth nobody wants to admit.

Discipline isn't the problem. Complexity is.

If your system takes more than five minutes to explain, it's not a system. It's a ticking time bomb.

I've watched dozens of smart, ambitious people repeat this pattern. They try to outsmart LinkedIn. They act like it's a hackathon, not a habit.

All the clever tricks in the world don't matter if you can't stick with it.

The survivors? The ones who actually get the compound benefits?

Their process is deadly boring.

Three types of posts. One slot in the diary. Dump a pile of ideas in a simple doc. Five minutes to scan notifications, respond, log out.

No dashboards. No hacks. No ritual sacrifices to the gods of engagement.

If your process makes you feel clever, it's doomed.

If your process is boring and predictable, you might just stick with it long enough for your name to mean something.

Most people confuse activity with impact. They burn out chasing vanity metrics, then disappear before the real results even show up.

LinkedIn rewards the people who outlast the noise.

Simple always wins.

If you want to actually be remembered, cut the drama and get boring.

Still convinced your fifteen step colour-coded content planner will make you famous? Good luck.

Want to actually get results?

Start showing up.

Keep it simple.

Comment "simple" and I'll give you a system that actually works, for free !

Most people still treat exec posts like gospel.

Hot takes from the top. Strategy memos dressed up as insights.

But nobody buys it anymore. Not candidates, not customers, not even other execs.

People want blood and sweat. Not another CEO rant.

Show me the engineer who broke production at 2 AM and shipped the fix before sunrise.

Show me the marketer who admits which campaign flopped and which one actually made money.

Show me the sales rep who rewrote their own script after losing a deal.

The trust shift is brutal. Authority isn't handed down from the corner office. It's earned in the comments, in the details, from the people doing the work.

Companies still stuck on leadership branding are sleepwalking into irrelevance.

The loudest, most credible voice in your org is never the CEO. It's the team that knows where the bodies are buried.

You want attention in 2026? It won't come from another executive LinkedIn post.

It comes from proof, not polish.

Do you want to start having your employees posting and not just liking ? 

Comment "playbook" and I'll share with you a free 30 day playbook to launch your employee advocacy program!

Everyone thinks the answer is to just post more.

It isn't.

If you want LinkedIn to actually move numbers, stop treating it like a dumping ground for content.

Posting and hoping is not a distribution strategy.

Most companies crank out updates, blogs, or "insights" and wonder why nobody bites.

Here's the brutal truth: nobody cares about your fifth product update this week.

You want a real distribution channel? Make your people part of the engine.

- If your employees aren't engaged, LinkedIn is just noise
- If your leaders never comment, you're invisible
- If your team never amplifies, your content dies on arrival

You don't need fancier graphics or an AI to write punchier posts.

You need buy-in.
You need repeatable systems.
You need actual coordination.

Distribution happens when everyone rows the same direction.

I've seen teams with average content crush metrics, because their people show up, comment, share, and actually talk to prospects in the open.

I've seen "content machines" wither because every post is a solo act.

It's not about more content.
It's about more company.

Want LinkedIn to work for you?
Start by getting five coworkers to comment on your next post.
Watch what happens.

Try it.
Report back.
Tag the silent lurkers who owe you a comment. 

Let's see if your "distribution" is real or just a pipe dream.

You're measuring employee advocacy success by "number of posts".

That's like measuring a restaurant by how many plates they own.

Looks busy. Means nothing.

Volume is the easiest metric to game, and the least likely to move the needle.

Most teams crank out content, log the numbers, then wonder why nothing changes.

It doesn't matter if the company LinkedIn Slack channel is full of daily copy-paste links. If nobody cares, you're just filling empty plates.

Real advocacy leaves a mark.

Not everyone needs to post. Not every post needs to go viral.

But every time someone shares, you should ask:

Did this start a real conversation?
Did anyone outside the company notice?
Did it make someone think, reply, or want to learn more?
Is the employee proud to have their name on it?

Skip the vanity metrics.

Track what matters: reach, engagement, replies, questions, DMs, sentiment.

If you're still counting posts, you're not measuring advocacy.

You're counting plates in the kitchen while customers walk out the door.

Raise your standards or stay irrelevant.

Overcomplicating LinkedIn is the fastest way to disappear.
People show up with a 12-step system, a Notion dashboard, and a spreadsheet for tracking "engagement velocity."

Week one, they're everywhere.
Week two, they're exhausted.
Week three, they're gone.

It's not a discipline issue.
Nobody can keep up with a process that feels like a second job.

LinkedIn isn't won by the cleverest workflow or the fanciest automation.
It's won by the people who can show up, again and again, without burning out.

Here's the play:
Pick a format.
Pick a slot.
Make it so simple you could do it with your eyes closed.

Forget "best time to post" hacks.
Forget obsessing over reach graphs and content buckets.
If you need a manual for your own process, it won't last.

Boring works.
Predictable wins.

The people you remember on LinkedIn?
They're not the ones with the most creative setup.
They're the ones who kept going after everyone else flamed out.

You don't need to optimize.
You need to endure.

Complexity is just procrastination in disguise.

If your posting routine is more complicated than brushing your teeth, it's doomed.

Simple scales.
Repetition compounds.

The rest is noise.

Comment "simple" and I'll send you the simplest system to grow on LinkedIn.
For free

If you use your sales brochure as the base for LinkedIn posts, you’re setting yourself up to fail.

Not because the offer is bad.

Because the format is wrong.

A sales brochure is made to convince.
A LinkedIn post is made to earn attention.

A brochure starts with:
What we do
How we do it
Why we’re different

A good post starts with:
A situation
A mistake
A sharp opinion
A story people recognize

That’s why brochure-based posts flop.

They feel like a pitch from the first line.

They’re full of words that sound nice but say nothing:
-> Seamless
-> End-to-end
-> Best-in-class
-> Game-changing

On a website, that’s fine.

On LinkedIn, those words trigger one reaction:
Scroll.

It gets worse when you run the brochure through an AI writing tool.

Because AI doesn’t create a point of view.
It amplifies the input.

So it takes generic copy and makes it:
- More polished
- More corporate
- More bland

Which makes the post even easier to ignore.

The fix is simple.

Don’t start from the brochure.

Start from raw material:
-> A real problem you see every week
-> A mistake customers keep making
-> A counterintuitive lesson
-> A moment from a call
-> A belief you’re willing to defend

Then turn that into one idea.

If the post could be copy-pasted onto your homepage, it’s not a LinkedIn post.

It’s a brochure with line breaks.

Struggling to find a method that works for your content creation? Comment "playbook" and I'll share the simplest, faster content system.

Strategic Co-Pilot for B2B Tech & Fintech Founders | I Help You Scale Without Chaos | AI & Data Delivery at Radsody

I am a fintech founder turned Independent Non-Executive Director, working with boards, founders, and investors navigating growth in regulated and high-velocity environments.

Over 15+ years, I have built and scaled fintech and SaaS businesses across the UK, Europe, and MENA — from early-stage startups to regulated financial institutions. My experience spans digital banking, payments, embedded finance, and financial infrastructure, with a strong focus on translating strategy into durable execution.

I currently serve as an Independent Non-Executive Director and board advisor to fintechs and financial institutions, bringing an operator’s perspective to governance, risk, and growth decisions.

Current and recent roles include:
- IFC-nominated Independent Director, TBC Bank Uzbekistan
- Fintech Advisory Board Member, PayU
- Executive Board Director, Fiat Republic

Earlier in my career, I was a founder and operator:
- Founding team member at HelloFresh (NYSE: HFG)
- Launched and scaled the UK arm of digital bank Fidor, supporting its sale to Groupe BPCE
- Co-founded and scaled a regulated payments platform (Fiat Republic)
- Led revenue growth in multi-million-dollar B2B SaaS businesses

I am also the co-author of Embedded Finance (Wiley, 2022).

In the boardroom, I help teams bring clarity to complexity and turn strategy into scalable outcomes.

Sophie Guibaud 👾

First day at IMD for the Mastering Board Governance programme, and genuinely excited to be here.

Didier Cossin defines Governance as 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬, 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬.

In real life, those decisions need to be made with incomplete information, competing priorities, and real consequences.

The best directors I know never stop sharpening that skill. The landscape - AI, ESG, regulation, stakeholder expectations - is shifting faster than ever.

So here I am. Taking notes, in a room full of people who take this responsibility seriously.

That's exactly where I want to be.

Sophie Guibaud

Independent Non-Executive Director & Board Advisor | Financial Services

There’s a moment in board discussions where everything has been analysed.

The numbers work. The deck is coherent. The downside has been modelled.

And still, something either sits right… or it doesn’t.

People call that “gut feeling.”

At board level, it isn’t instinct. It’s compressed experience.

It comes from reading the full pack.
From understanding how the business actually makes money.
From knowing your own biases.
From not needing to win the room.

Ego is expensive in governance.

The intuition that matters is pattern recognition + preparation + integrity, especially when pressure builds, and consensus feels convenient.

That feeling isn’t emotion.

It’s what’s left after you’ve done the work.

I recently joined the 100 Women In Finance's 100WFinTech Directory as part of the #100WFinTech Global Initiative.

As fintech matures, the conversation is shifting from pure innovation to questions of governance, risk, capital discipline and long-term value creation. 

Communities that bring together senior operators, investors and board members across financial services are increasingly important in shaping that evolution.

I was on the Fintech Insider podcast this week to dig into something many of us have noticed but not quite put together the way the team at 11:FS has done: the banking battlefield hasn't just evolved, it's gone vertical.

The original Banking Battlefield they framed back then was genuinely useful when it was created. 

But the battlefield it describes? That's not the one we're fighting on anymore.

So we took the time this week to revisit it.

The challengers who everyone wrote off are now posting billion-pound profits, helping write the rules for the next generation of payments infrastructure, and finally getting their UK banking licence (congrats Revolut!).

The real competitive pressure has shifted underground. It's no longer about who has the best app. It's about who controls the infrastructure underneath.

Primacy gets you the customer. Infrastructure keeps them.

We should also be honest: incumbents got a break. High interest rates bought them time: margins recovered, pressure eased, transformation felt less urgent.

That window is closing.

And most incumbents are finding transformation harder than expected.

Not because the will isn't there, it is.

But because the constraint was never really the technology. It's culture and governance, and that starts at the board.

You cannot navigate this battlefield without commercial and product expertise at the top. Not just risk and compliance - though that matters - but people who genuinely understand what it means to compete in this environment.

Without that, transformation is just expensive theatre.

Have a listen, would love to know what resonates 👇
🎧 https://lnkd.in/gcPZ5nGf

Financial services boards are packed with experience. But is it the right kind?

Having spent much of my career working with fintech operators and now spending more time in financial services governance, the difference in operating perspectives is striking.

Across the industry, many bank and payments boardrooms are rich in decades of risk, regulatory, and traditional banking expertise. That experience is invaluable and necessary.

But when career paths around the table look too similar, it can quietly shape how the future is evaluated.

Meanwhile, the industry itself is being reshaped by digital platforms, fintech operators, and entirely new customer expectations.

This is where board skills mapping matters.

When boards honestly assess the expertise around the table against where the institution needs to go (not just where it has been), the gaps often become clear.

Innovation.
Growth.
Digital transformation.
Customer experience.
Technology-led operating models.

These capabilities are still less common around many financial services board tables.

What someone with a fintech or startup operating background brings to a board isn’t disruption for its own sake. It’s a different lens.

In practice, that perspective often changes the questions that get asked in the boardroom.

• 𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞. In high-growth environments, slow decisions don’t just cost time, they cost relevance.
• 𝐂𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬. Fintech operators are often used to framing decisions through the lens of the end-to-end customer journey.
 • 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐜 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. Innovation requires bets that won’t all pay off.

The financial institutions that will lead the next decade are already expanding the range of operating experience around the table.

Because boards don’t just govern the present.

Does the expertise around the table reflect where the institution has been, or where it needs to go?

The Bancolombia outage last week has reopened an important conversation, one that goes well beyond a single institution.

When payments move in real time, interdependence increases, and fragility surfaces faster.

This isn't about blame but about architecture.

A few things stand out from a board governance perspective:

𝐀𝐯𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐟𝐢𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐫𝐲. 
Uptime is trust, not only an IT metric. For customers, it's whether salaries arrive. For boards, operational resilience deserves the same seriousness as capital and liquidity.

𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐤 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫𝐬. 
Core systems. Cloud providers. Vendors. Instant rails. We tend to assess risk at the institutional level, but increasingly, the real exposure sits in the interconnections.

𝐒𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐨 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 
What happens if a major participant in a real-time rail is down for 72 hours? How is liquidity managed? Who coordinates communication? How is contagion contained? Resilience is not a framework. It's a rehearsed capability.

And the stack is expanding.

Stablecoins now operate as parallel settlement layers. They add optionality, particularly cross-border, but introduce new concentration points at issuer and protocol level.

Risk doesn't disappear. It migrates.

The question for boards and regulators is no longer simply: "Is our institution resilient?"

It's: "Is the stack resilient?"
Institution. Rail. Vendor. Issuer. Protocol.

Digital finance will never be risk-free. Resilience must be designed, not assumed. And at the board level, design is governance.

The recent debate in Colombia, highlighted by Marcel van Oost and sparked by comments from Marcela Torres of Nubank Colombia, points to a broader systemic issue.

Open article: Nu Flags Systemic Risk After Bancolombia Hits Bre-B Rails by connectingthedotsinfin.tech

Nu Flags Systemic Risk After Bancolombia Hits Bre-B Rails

taplio

The Battle

Patrice Orenes-Lerma

Sophie Guibaud 👾

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScorePatrice Orenes-Lerma's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreSophie Guibaud 👾's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Patrice Orenes-Lerma

Sophie Guibaud 👾

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);}Patrice Orenes-Lerma's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreSophie Guibaud 👾's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScorePatrice Orenes-Lerma's LinkedIn Performance