Samuel Mwendwa

I lead strategic finance for high-growth fintech and SaaS companies operating across complex, multi-country environments.

My core work is simple: help leadership teams make better capital decisions under uncertainty — how long the runway is, where cash should go, and what breaks if assumptions change.

I’ve built and led FP&A, treasury, and investor-grade reporting across 12+ markets, partnering directly with CEOs, CFOs, and boards during:

→ Fundraising and diligence cycles
→ Regulatory expansion
→ Efficiency resets
→ M&A readiness

What I’m known for

→ Turning messy operating data into clear, decision-ready financial models

→ Designing treasury and cash-flow structures that hold up under audit and scrutiny

→ Linking GTM, pricing, and unit economics to actual capital outcomes

Recent impact

→ Extended operating runway by 9+ months through forecasting and capital reallocation

→ Supported a $12M M&A transaction with investor-grade reporting and diligence readiness

→ Built global treasury and finance infrastructure spanning the US, UK, and Africa

I’m most effective with companies navigating growth, expansion, or capital events where financial clarity directly affects survival or valuation.

If you’re hiring a senior finance leader or need short-term strategic finance support around fundraising, expansion, or runway — feel free to reach out.

Group Tax and Accounting Manager

Why subtraction beats growth in capital-constrained startups

In today’s fundraising environment, chasing growth alone is rarely rewarded. More hires, more features, more markets—without discipline—become liabilities when capital tightens.

I’ve seen boards push relentless expansion, only for valuation multiples to stall while burn rates spiral and teams exhaust themselves.

The startups that outperform are those that prune relentlessly: stripping processes, discretionary spend, and initiatives that don’t move the valuation needle.

A framework I apply as a Fractional COO or Strategic Finance Advisor:

Identify activities that generate measurable value—revenue impact, customer retention, or margin improvement.

Map recurring costs and processes, then evaluate what could be paused or removed without harming delivery.

Institutionalize periodic review sessions and link incentives to operational efficiency, not just growth metrics.

The outcome is simple:

Leaner operations → higher margins

Simpler products → faster adoption

Smaller, focused teams → tighter accountability

Subtraction isn’t about survival. It’s strategic amplification. When markets tighten, disciplined simplification is what sustains runway, protects optionality, and unlocks higher valuations.

undefined undefined

Hey [First Name] — appreciate you jumping into the wallet convo!

As mentioned, I pulled together a brief on the latest Dune data + trends shaping how wallets are becoming crypto’s new control layer.

Here’s the link: 

Curious what your take is: are you more bullish on smart accounts, wallet infra, or UX-led plays right now?
Always down to trade thoughts if you're building or tracking in this space.

— Samuel

The hard lesson I’ve seen in web3 is counterintuitive: hype can inflate valuations, but only operational rigor preserves them. Burn multiple and GTM risk aren’t abstract—they are leading signals of whether capital and incentives actually create durable network value. I’ve watched promising protocols command headlines while quietly eroding optionality because adoption and token deployment weren’t sequenced for efficiency. Leadership here isn’t just about raising the next round; it’s structuring capital and go-to-market to compound value predictably under real-world constraints.

If you’re thinking about embedding burn efficiency and GTM risk into web3 valuation, I share actionable frameworks—follow or DM for insights.

nextlify-scale

Advanced Python: Working With Data

Advanced QGIS Analysis with AI and Machine Learning

Corporate Finance Foundations

Excel for Financial Planning and Analysis (FP&A)

Finance Foundations: Risk Management

Financial Modeling and Forecasting Financial Statements

International Business and Finance

Power BI Data Analyst Associate (PL-300) Cert Prep: Advanced Reporting in Power BI

SQL Server Machine Learning Services: Python

SQL for Data Analysis

Six Sigma: Black Belt

Strategic Planning Foundations

Tableau Certified Data Analyst Cert Prep

Business Intelligence & Data Analyst (BIDA®)

Leveraging Generative AI in Finance and Accounting

The Role of the FP&A Professional

Data Visualization & Dashboards - The Basics

Intermediate DAX & Time Intelligence

Power BI  Case Study – CFI Capital Partners

SQL Case Study - WOWI Sales Analysis

The course has eneble me to demonstrate creative & innovative thinking in strategy development.
Understand management and organizational theory, and relate this to strategy development.
Identify strategic issues and design appropriate courses of action. 
Provide a basic understanding of the nature and dynamics of the strategy formulation and implementation processes as they occur in complex organizations. 
Understand the essentials of strategy management in a global economy. 


Women Empowerment Link

members economic empowerment and concern to the economy

STAREX S. H GROUP

Fractional CFO | Strategic Finance Leader for High-Growth Startups | Capital Planning • FP&A • M&A • GTM Enablement

As a strategic finance leader and fractional CFO, I help high-growth startups transform financial complexity into clarity—and clarity into action. My specialty is turning operational data into board-ready decisions that extend runway, increase valuation, and drive smart capital allocation.

I’ve built and led finance functions across VC-backed fintech, SaaS, and Regenerative ventures—from zero-to-one scaling to acquisition readiness. My approach combines lean systems, dynamic FP&A, and investor-grade decision support that aligns finance with product velocity, market expansion, and fundraising.

What I Deliver:

Capital Planning with Precision: Burn modeling, unit economics, multi-scenario forecasting, and capital allocation frameworks that sharpen board and investor decisions.

Finance Systems That Scale: Cloud ERP, dashboarding, automated workflows, and compliance infrastructure tailored for fast-growth startups.

Strategic M&A and Investor Readiness: Scenario modeling, audit-proof reporting, and real-time insights to support funding, exits, and GTM alignment.

Recent Wins:

Cut burn by 25% and extended runway by 9+ months through FP&A transformation

Led finance modeling for $12M M&A scenario resulting in acquisition

Built a tax intelligence engine that reduced audit risk by 18% across 3 continents

I’m most effective in moments of scale, shift, or scrutiny—pre-Series B, pre-acquisition, or prepping for a fundraise—where financial strategy is mission-critical and capital clarity drives velocity.

Let’s connect if you're leading a high-growth startup and want a finance partner who builds for what's next.

Strategic Finance & Capital Allocation Principal | Fintech Growth Accelerator & Runway Protector Unit Economics • High-Conviction Capital Deployment • Pricing & Incentive Optimization • Multi-Market Treasury & Payments

Layoffs are often a proxy decision. They feel decisive, visible, and fast. They’re also frequently the wrong first move.

I watched a SaaS company cut 20% of its team to extend runway. Morale dropped. Output slowed. Burn barely changed. The issue wasn’t people—it was the product footprint those people were propping up.

Years of reactive selling had turned the roadmap into a liability. Custom features, marginal integrations, edge-case workflows. Each one small. Together, they consumed engineering time, support capacity, and cash.

Instead of another reduction, we made a harder call: reduce the product surface area.

Every feature was tied to revenue and retention—not in theory, but in practice. Features with vocal internal champions but no measurable impact were sunset. Integrations used by one or two customers triggered uncomfortable conversations. Sales pushed back. Some customers complained. A few left.

What changed was focus. Engineering velocity improved because teams weren’t context-switching. Support load dropped. New deals were easier to explain and sell. Costs finally came down in a durable way.

Cutting headcount treats symptoms. Cutting product scope addresses cause—but it requires accepting near-term pain to avoid structural fragility.

When runway tightens, the first question isn’t who to cut.

It’s what you’re willing to stop supporting—and who might be unhappy when you do.

Why most SaaS & fintech forecasts silently sabotage growth

Copying a forecasting template from another SaaS company feels safe. It’s quick, it balances, and it ticks a box.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: generic FP&A models rarely reflect your actual business dynamics.

The consequences aren’t just imperfect numbers—they’re missed opportunities, wasted capital, and slow erosion of strategic advantage.

Common pitfalls I see:

Revenue assumptions and drivers that don’t match your customer lifecycle.

Expense ratios borrowed from unrelated businesses.

Capital planning misaligned with real operational levers.

A few principles for building forecasts that actually work:

Align with your business DNA – every driver should reflect your customers, churn, and cost structure.

Link numbers to action – every line item should map to a lever you can influence.

Stress test, don’t copy – models only add value when they answer the tough “what if” questions.

Custom models take longer, but they pay back in clarity, team alignment, and strategies that work in your market—not someone else’s.

In today’s capital-constrained, high-velocity environment, knowing where you stand—and where you’re going—is the difference between surviving and scaling.

When the bravest move isn’t scaling—it’s hitting pause

I once worked with a founder sprinting toward growth while the runway was shrinking. Revenue was flat, cash reserves were dwindling, and every instinct screamed: “Go faster!”

I told him the opposite: pause.

Across tech, healthcare, fintech, and media, I’ve seen the same pattern: chasing growth with limited capital is like pressing the gas with the fuel light on. It feels bold—but it’s risky.

Here’s how I guide leaders through capital-constrained periods:

→ Survival is a strategy.

Weathering tough markets preserves optionality and separates resilient companies from those that fail.

→ Pause ≠ standstill.

Use the time to prioritize spend, focus on essentials, and cut non-critical initiatives.

→ Get real about runway.

Forecast cash weekly, know your zero-cash date, and stress-test scenarios.

→ Engage customers meaningfully.

Identify what they value, what they’d pay more for, and where your efforts are wasted.

→ Question growth assumptions.

Is a new market a distraction? Is a feature just vanity? If it doesn’t drive retention or revenue, table it.

→ Communicate clearly and honestly.

The team will follow a realistic plan; investors respect pragmatism over bravado.

I’ve seen founders who hit pause return stronger. They didn’t win by scaling faster—they won by surviving strategically and coming back ready to accelerate.

Key takeaway: slowing down to focus is often the most courageous and profitable decision when capital is tight.

I watched a founder give up control of his company long before the Series B closed.

The dilution showed up on the cap table.
The mistake happened months earlier.

He optimized for percentage ownership while letting time run out. Cash tightened. Momentum slowed. Optionality disappeared. By the time he raised, the negotiation was mostly theater.

The uncomfortable truth: in fundraising, dilution is usually an outcome—not the problem. Timing is the variable that determines everything else.

Raising late doesn’t just lower valuation. It changes who has leverage in the room, which terms are non-negotiable, and how much governance you quietly surrender to survive the round.

Most teams say they’re waiting for “one more milestone.”
What they’re really doing is borrowing against future confidence.

Strong operators don’t ask, “How do we minimize dilution?”
They ask, “When do we still have choices?”

They raise when the business is trending up, not when cash dictates the calendar.
They align capital with value inflection points, not quarters.
They track investor appetite as a market signal, not a vanity exercise.

By the time your runway is red, the decision has already been made for you.

The real question isn’t how much ownership you give up.
It’s whether you raised while the clock was still on your side.

A founder once told me, “Our base case gives us 18 months of runway.”

I asked what happens if two assumptions break at the same time.

No one had an answer.

That’s the risk most teams underestimate. Not that the base case is wrong—but that it’s singular. One version of the future, treated as sufficient.

In practice, companies don’t fail because revenue misses by 5%. They fail when timing, customers, and capital all slip together—and there’s no pre-agreed response.

The uncomfortable truth: a base case is not a plan. It’s a reference point.

What separates resilient teams is not optimism or pessimism. It’s preparation for compound failure.

The strongest operators I’ve worked with do something different. They identify the few assumptions that would force irreversible decisions if they broke—liquidity, customer concentration, funding timing. Then they model those breaking fast, not gradually.

Not to predict outcomes, but to pre-decide actions.

What gets cut first.
What must not slow down.
Who communicates, and how.

When downside scenarios are explicit, execution gets calmer. Boards stay aligned. Teams move instead of debate.

You don’t need to be right about the future.
You need to know which version of it you’re not allowed to be surprised by.

Raising money creates a dangerous illusion: that speed is the same as progress.

I almost learned that the hard way.

After a round closed, every team had a “high-confidence” use for capital.
None of them were irrational.
Taken together, they would have quietly destroyed our margin for error.

That’s the trap.
Capital doesn’t disappear in one reckless decision.
It leaks out through reasonable ones.

The real risk wasn’t overspending.
It was committing cash in ways that narrowed future choices before the business had earned that certainty.

Every dollar forced the same question:
If this works, what does it unlock?
If it doesn’t, what have we permanently lost?

Some bets promised growth but locked us into cost structures we couldn’t unwind.
Others created motion with no path to learning.
Saying no slowed us down—and bought us time.

That trade-off is uncomfortable.
Boards want momentum.
Teams want resourcing.
Founders want to capitalize on the moment.

But liquidity isn’t fuel.
It’s leverage.
Used early, it should increase optionality, not consume it.

Most companies don’t run out of cash.
They run out of room to maneuver.

The hardest capital decisions aren’t about ROI.
They’re about which future you’re quietly ruling out when you say yes.

Most fintech expansion plans fail for reasons that never show up in the product roadmap.

FX is one of them.

I’ve seen teams execute flawlessly on market entry—regulatory approval, local partners, strong demand—only to watch margins erode quietly as currencies moved against them.
Nothing “broke.”
The economics just stopped working.

That’s the trap.
FX risk rarely announces itself as a crisis.
It shows up as missed forecasts, confusing variance, and a growing gap between reported growth and actual cash.

Founders tend to treat this as a finance clean-up item.
In reality, it’s a sequencing decision.

Every new currency exposure competes with growth for capital.
Hedging can stabilize outcomes, but it isn’t free.
Ignoring FX preserves speed—until volatility forces an unplanned correction.

The question isn’t whether FX matters.
It’s when it starts to matter enough to change behavior.

Teams that scale well make this explicit early.
They know which exposures are tolerable, which must be controlled, and which markets only make sense if margins can absorb volatility.
They plan for currency movement the same way they plan for churn or pricing pressure.

Product-market fit gets you permission to expand.
Financial control determines whether expansion compounds—or quietly reverses.

If your global model only works when currencies cooperate, you don’t have a scaling problem.
You have an assumptions problem.

Most founders overestimate how far a funding round actually takes them.

I once joined a company two weeks after a $5M raise. The team felt relieved. Hiring plans ballooned. Vendors pitched extras. Meetings began with, “We have time.”

The reality? Their 24 months of runway was closer to 11.

The uncomfortable truth: runway isn’t cash in the bank. It’s the discipline to turn spend into outcomes. Every hire, every vendor, every initiative is a trade-off. One misstep erodes optionality faster than you expect.

Teams that thrive under pressure link every dollar to learning, not comfort. They ask: Will this spend accelerate our next milestone—or just postpone hard decisions? They kill bad bets early, spot “runway leaks” before they metastasize, and focus on high-impact priorities.

I run a “Runway Reality Check” quarterly: list new spend, expected outcomes, actual outcomes, and whether it’s still the fastest path to your next milestone. The exercise forces clarity, speed, and accountability in a way no bank balance can.

The hardest question founders must ask themselves: Are you buying time—or buying comfort? The answer separates teams that survive from teams that thrive.

I’ve seen founders pitch with flawless slides, high-energy narratives, and stratospheric projections—yet they ignore the most important story: the downside.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: if your fundraising deck doesn’t model what can go wrong, you’re not raising capital—you’re selling fantasy.

Investors reward realism, not optimism. A missed downside case signals either inexperience or unwillingness to face reality. Both cost credibility, influence, and capital.

The cost of ignoring risk is real:
→ Blind growth decisions.
→ Misallocated resources.
→ Strategic missteps that compound before anyone notices.

The leaders who succeed don’t just inspire—they demonstrate discipline under uncertainty. They know: capital is limited, time is scarce, and every decision carries trade-offs. They quantify the worst case first, model levers to respond, and align the team around what survival—and acceleration—looks like.

The point isn’t pessimism. It’s credibility under pressure. Investors, boards, and teams bet on founders who can navigate adversity, not just celebrate upside.

Next time you raise capital, ask yourself: are you showing your business can survive reality, or just sell a dream? Because the difference between a good raise and a wasted one isn’t your valuation—it’s your judgment.

Most companies don’t fail because of dilution. They fail because they run out of time.

I’ve seen founders reject unattractive term sheets while telling themselves they were being disciplined. In reality, they were protecting an idea of ownership that only mattered if the company survived.

One boardroom still sticks with me. The offer on the table wasn’t good. Down valuation, heavy preferences, real control concessions. Walking away felt principled. Waiting felt optional.

It wasn’t.

Three months later, cash was gone. The option to choose disappeared. Employees left. Customers followed. The dilution he feared became irrelevant.

The uncomfortable part is this: dilution is a cost, but so is delay. And delay compounds quietly. Leverage erodes before panic shows up in the numbers.

That doesn’t mean you take any deal. Bad capital can cripple a company just as surely as no capital. Terms matter. Partners matter. Control matters.

But refusing to engage because a deal feels “ugly” is often just another way of betting that circumstances will improve in time.

Sometimes the real trade-off isn’t dilution versus control.

It’s dilution versus probability of survival.

And probability is what boards and operators are paid to protect, even when the optics are unpleasant.

Underpricing rarely feels dangerous. That’s what makes it expensive.

I watched a fintech CEO avoid a price increase for years because churn felt like the existential risk. Costs rose. Competitors repriced. He stayed “customer-friendly.” Revenue quietly capped itself.

The board didn’t panic at first. Then margins compressed. Then hiring slowed. Then the questions shifted from growth to durability.

Pricing isn’t a one-time decision—it’s a compounding one. Every quarter you delay, you train customers on what your product is worth and lock yourself into an operating model that assumes restraint forever.

When we revisited pricing, the hardest part wasn’t math. It was confronting which customers actually valued the product versus those simply enjoying a discount.

We didn’t reprice everyone. We started with new contracts and a narrow segment where the product was embedded in core workflows. Sales pushed back. A few deals slowed. That was the cost of information.

Churn didn’t spike. What changed was unit economics—and credibility. Suddenly the business could fund itself longer. The board conversation shifted from defense to choice.

Raising prices is risky. Not raising them is a slow commitment to subsidizing your customers with your future.

The real pricing question isn’t “Will we lose customers?”

It’s “Which customers are we implicitly choosing to keep at this price—and what does that choice cost us over time?”

The most dangerous finance teams aren’t sloppy. They’re punctual and irrelevant.

I watched a $100M SaaS company drift toward a cash crisis not because finance failed at reporting—but because it was structurally excluded from decision-making. The books were clean. The insights were late.

The business was expanding aggressively: new geographies, multiple currencies, overlapping bets. The board asked reasonable questions—downside scenarios, capital exposure, FX sensitivity. Finance could explain what had already happened. Not what was likely to happen next.

So strategy filled the gap. Optimism substituted for analysis. Europe scaled faster than demand. Currency exposure compounded losses. Forecasts assumed best-case execution because no one was incentivized to challenge them.

By the time finance raised concerns, reversing course meant layoffs and damaged credibility.

The lesson wasn’t “finance should move faster.” It was that finance has to accept discomfort earlier—pushing back on plans that look good in isolation but break under stress.

At scale, finance isn’t a control function. It’s a constraint engine. Its value is in narrowing choices before capital commits, not explaining variance after.

Accuracy keeps you compliant. Judgment keeps you solvent.

The real question for leadership isn’t whether finance has a seat at the table—but whether anyone is empowered to say, “If we do this, here’s what we’re betting the company on.”

The first time I watched a startup hemorrhage cash because of foreign exchange risk, it nearly made me quit coffee. Let me paint the scene. We were celebrating a big contract win. Five countries. Ten currencies. Big plans. Everyone was toasting the international expansion, but the finance team was quietly sweating. I asked the founders if they’d modeled FX exposure. They shrugged. We invoice in dollars. FX risk is for the IBMs, right? Wrong. Fast forward two quarters. Revenue looked great on paper. But each payout landed a little lighter than expected. The CFO blamed the payments processor. The CEO blamed the bank. But the real culprit? Currency swings. Every GBP or INR collected had quietly slipped through their fingers, chewed up by market moves. By the time they spotted it, six figures had evaporated—before the first invoice even cleared. Here’s the dirty little secret: You don’t need to be a global giant to bleed out from FX risk.

↳ Even a fivecountry fintech can see margins shredded. Most founders underestimate three things: → The lag between revenue recognition and cash collection.

→ Just how quickly currencies can shift—sometimes overnight.

→ The compounding effect of small misses, quarter after quarter. It’s not just about volatility—it’s about visibility. If you’re scaling across borders, you can’t afford to treat FX as an afterthought. Waiting until your controller flags a variance is too late. Here’s the approach I now swear by—one I wish I’d known back then: 1. Build FX exposure directly into your forecast models.

↳ Not just a line item, but a core scenario. 2. Set up realtime tracking dashboards.

↳ Use API feeds from your banks and payment providers. 3. Run monthly stress tests.

↳ Simulate 2%5% swings and watch the impact on gross margin. 4. Talk to your banking partner about locking in rates.

↳ Forward contracts aren’t just for the Fortune 500. 5. Assign an owner.

↳ If everyone owns FX, no one owns FX. The day we embedded this playbook, something changed. Founders stopped seeing FX as a footnote. They started treating it like any other business risk—one you measure, manage, and review. Suddenly, that sixfigure loss turned into a line of defense. Margins held steady. Planning finally felt real. If you’re scaling internationally, don’t wait for the first invoice to realize what’s at stake. Start treating FX risk as a strategic threat—and a growth lever. The best operators already do. Curious how fractional leaders approach FX for leaner, faster teams? Drop a comment if you want the full playbook.

You don’t lose marketplaces because revenue slows.
You lose them because you scale the wrong transactions.

Most founders know contribution margin matters.
What they underestimate is how long negative unit economics can stay hidden while everything looks fine.

GMV grows.
Revenue grows.
The board relaxes.

Meanwhile, every incremental transaction deepens dependence on subsidies, incentives, and service costs that don’t come back down. What started as “temporary investment” hardens into the business model.

The uncomfortable truth:
If contribution margin is negative at scale, growth is not optionality—it’s commitment. You’re locking in future cash burn and reducing your ability to change pricing, segments, or incentives without breaking the marketplace.

This is where decisions get hard.

Do you slow a high-visibility category because it never clears contribution margin?
Do you retrain demand away from subsidized supply even if GMV drops?
Do you accept flatter topline numbers to regain control of cash?

Strong marketplaces answer these questions early, when they still have degrees of freedom. Weak ones defer them until the math forces a reset—usually on someone else’s terms.

Revenue tells you how busy you are.
Contribution margin tells you whether that activity compounds or compounds the problem.

Most boards can tell which one you’re optimizing for within five minutes.

Most crisis responses fail because they optimize for visibility, not survival.

Boards panic about headlines.
Founders panic about morale.
Finance teams panic about burn.

None of those are the constraint.

Under pressure, leaders reach for actions that look decisive: layoffs, PR cleanups, revised forecasts.
They reduce noise.
They rarely change outcomes.

The uncomfortable reality is this:
In a real downturn, you don’t get to fix everything.
You choose which weakness gets to kill you.

I’ve seen companies cut deeply and still die because churn was accelerating.
I’ve seen others preserve teams and lose credibility because liquidity was ignored for one quarter too long.
Both were “rational” in isolation.
Neither confronted the binding constraint.

The hardest work in a crisis isn’t planning.
It’s sequencing.

What must be true six months from now for the company to exist?
What decision today makes that more likely—and what does it break in exchange?

Liquidity buys time, but can destroy momentum.
Product focus restores fit, but delays relief.
Optics calm stakeholders, but can mask decay.

Second-order effects matter more than the first move.

Most companies don’t collapse from a single mistake.
They make a series of reasonable decisions that all assume the same thing is wrong.

The question isn’t “What’s urgent?”
It’s: What, if left unaddressed, makes every other decision irrelevant?

Incremental fixes feel responsible in a crisis.
They’re usually a way to postpone the decision that actually determines survival.

I saw this clearly with a SaaS company that lost two major customers in a week.
The board defaulted to the usual responses: freeze hiring, trim spend, delay launches.
Each move was sensible.
Together, they bought days—not a future.

The real problem wasn’t cost discipline.
It was that the existing plan no longer worked, and everyone was trying to preserve it anyway.

That’s the mistake.
In a true cash crisis, incrementalism doesn’t reduce risk—it compounds it.
You keep funding a structure that may already be broken.

The harder path is narrowing early.
Choosing what the company will not be.
Accepting irreversible damage in exchange for time and clarity.

Those decisions carry real downside.
You lose people you value.
You concentrate bets before certainty arrives.
You risk being wrong in public.

But delay has a cost too: it quietly removes optionality.

The companies that survive crises don’t optimize for comfort or consensus.
They align quickly on what must be protected, what can be sacrificed, and what future they’re willing to abandon.

The question isn’t whether the cuts are painful.
It’s whether they meaningfully change the company’s odds—or just slow the countdown.

I’ve sat in boardrooms where a record valuation was treated like proof of safety.

It usually meant the opposite.

The celebration focused on the number.
No one wanted to talk about burn, sequencing, or what had to be true twelve months later for the company to exist on acceptable terms.

That’s the mistake.
Valuation is an outcome.
It doesn’t tell you *when* you can spend, *where* you can spend, or *what happens if the next round doesn’t show up on schedule*.

I’ve seen companies raise strong Series As, hire aggressively, and assume momentum would carry them.
Revenue grew.
So did fixed costs.
When the market tightened, the valuation didn’t protect them—it boxed them in.

The real work after a raise isn’t scaling.
It’s sequencing.

Which investments unlock the next credible milestone?
Which ones only make sense if the following round is guaranteed?
What must be preserved if conditions turn before you expect?

Capital deployed too early doesn’t just shorten runway.
It removes options.
It forces future rounds to solve yesterday’s optimism.

The teams that survive treat cash like a dependency chain, not a pile of fuel.
Every dollar either earns the right to deploy the next one—or it doesn’t get spent.

The uncomfortable question isn’t how impressive your valuation looks.
It’s whether your current spend still makes sense if the market doesn’t cooperate.

I used to believe headcount scaled output.
Then I watched a company spend $11M in under two years and end up with less clarity than it started with.

Demand was real.
The product worked.
What broke was the cost structure.

Under board pressure to “build ahead,” the team hired aggressively.
Burn doubled.
Execution slowed.
Every forecast—no matter how generous—ended with the same conclusion: the business had less room to maneuver each month.

That’s the part founders miss.
Hiring doesn’t just add capacity.
It hardens assumptions.

Once payroll expands, every plan has to justify the org chart.
Forecasts bend.
Rigor slips.
Hope fills the gap.

The mistake isn’t growth ambition.
It’s treating hiring as reversible.

In capital-constrained environments, headcount is the least flexible decision you make.
It locks in burn.
It amplifies coordination costs.
And it narrows your options if conditions change.

The teams that survive pressure don’t hire “carefully.”
They hire conditionally.

What outcome does this role unlock?
What happens if that outcome arrives late—or not at all?
What breaks if we wait?

Saying no to a hire rarely feels strategic in the moment.
Six months later, it often turns out to be the decision that kept the company alive.

The real question isn’t how fast you can staff up.
It’s how much certainty you actually have when you do.

I once met a founder who looked haunted.
Their startup had just raised a healthy seed round. The runway chart looked perfect—24 months of breathing room. Every line item triple-checked. Every assumption conservative.

And yet, the company was frozen.

Hiring slowed. Product experiments paused. Critical investments deferred. The logic was “survive longer.” The reality?

→ Competitors shipped features the team had only dreamed of.
→ Revenue stalled while expenses quietly climbed.
→ Talent grew restless and started looking elsewhere.

Obsessing over runway can backfire. Every month “saved” in cash is a month lost in market opportunity. Windows close. Momentum slips. The longer you hesitate, the harder it becomes to catch up.

Capital isn’t just a lifeline—it’s leverage.

The companies I advise don’t hoard runway; they deploy it strategically. They:

→ Identify inflection points where spending accelerates growth.
→ Burn faster on proven product-market fit signals.
→ Double down on what works—even if it shortens runway.

Survival isn’t measured in months of runway. It’s measured in whether you acted when the market allowed you to.

The startups that get remembered? They bet decisively, at the right time, with purpose—not cautiously, for comfort.

Ask yourself: is your runway a leash—or a weapon?

Leadership development training for Tech companies | ex-Meta, ex-Microsoft | Researcher & Doctoral Candidate | Keynote Speaker | McKinsey Next Generation Women Leaders

9 trillion dollars.
That’s what employee disengagement will cost the global economy 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 in 2025 (Gallup, 2025).

The #1 driver?
(Spoiler, it’s not laziness!)

It’s 𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭.

But I’m not here to point fingers.

Since the pandemic, managers are being asked to do the impossible: cut costs, restructure, drive digital transformation, integrate AI, and continue generating growth for the business.

All while their teams ask for: more flexibility, well-being, purpose, and let’s not forget, psychological safety.

Most managers can’t keep up. They’re burning out and disengaging.

And since 70% of team engagement is directly tied to the manager, their teams quickly follow.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬?

When companies invest in leadership training, manager disengagement drops.

𝐖𝐡𝐲?

- They feel more equipped to lead and face challenges,
- They’re re-motivated by the impact it has on their team,
- They see that their company cares about their well-being and

Leadership programs yield massive ROI: 700% on average. Some companies report up to 5000%. (ICF)


This is where 934 Leadership Advisors comes in:
𝐖𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐨𝐫-𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞, 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞-𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐝  𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐩𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐡 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐬. 

𝐖𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐞, 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐦𝐬?

𝘓𝘦𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬!


𝐇𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬:

Corina combines business acumen, academic rigor, and intercultural fluency. A former negotiator for Microsoft and Meta, she led complex, multi-million-dollar partnerships with C-level executives, gaining unique insight into how strategy and human psychology intersect. Currently completing a Doctorate in Organizational Behavior, her award-winning research on the psychological contract has been recognized internationally at the 2025 Academy of Management Global Conference. Having lived in five countries, she brings deep cross-cultural sensitivity and a nuanced understanding of global leadership dynamics.
Corina has been named amongst the Next Generation Women Leaders by McKinsey & Co.

Corina Taban

Looking for ways to sharpen your mindset?


Here are 9 science-backed practices to help you:

1/ 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐦.
↳ Self-control predicts success better than IQ.
↳ Choose growth over comfort.


2/ 𝐂𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲.
↳ Our brains have limited capacity: clutter drains clarity.
↳ Cut the non-essential. Simplicity sharpens thinking.


3/ 𝐂𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐲.
↳ Happiness, habits, and even obesity spread through networks. It’s called social contagion.
↳ Surround yourself with people whose mindset you want to mirror.


4/ 𝐁𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐭.
↳ Leaders who communicate with clarity build 4.5x more trust.
↳ Drop the jargon. Aim for clarity, not complexity.


5/ 𝐆𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐩.
↳ Unfinished tasks stay active in memory, creating tension.
↳ Break work into the tiniest first step to build momentum.


6/ 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐞 > 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭.
↳ Rapid iteration outperforms perfectionism by driving 30% faster innovation cycles.
↳ Ship, learn, iterate. Perfection is procrastination in disguise.


7/ 𝐆𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐞𝐥𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬.
↳ People who practiced daily gratitude reported 25% higher life satisfaction.
↳ Each morning, name 3 things you’re grateful for. Simple, powerful, proven.


8/ 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬.
↳ Compelling stories sync brain activity between speaker and listener.
↳ Facts inform, stories persuade. Weave narratives into your leadership.


9/ 𝐌𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐦𝐲𝐭𝐡.
↳ Heavy multitaskers perform worse on memory, attention, and task-switching.
↳ Single-task with intent. Focus is today’s true superpower.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

👉 What would you add as #10?

♻️ Sharing is caring: someone in your network might need to read this. 

➕ By the way, I (Corina Taban) share science-backed strategies for better thinking, stronger influence & smarter leadership.

🖼️ Visuals by the talented Pejman Milani (Give him a follow!)

9 science-backed practices to sharpen your mindset

I’ve read every single day for 13 years, 
and here’s what I’ve learned 👇 



1. 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬.

↳ Build one habit, and it strengthens your “discipline muscle.”
↳ Self-control in one area makes it easier to stay consistent in others: work, focus, fitness, even relationships.


2. 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞, 𝐢𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲.

↳ Most people overestimate what they can do in a week...
and underestimate what they can do in 10 years.
↳ As little as 10 pages a day = 3,650 pages/year.
That’s a book a month.
Do it for 10 years, and you’ve reprogrammed how you think.


3. 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐝𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐲:

🧠 𝘔𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘴. You start connecting dots.
💬 𝘊𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺. The more you read, the better you articulate ideas.
😌 𝘍𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘴. It trains your brain to go deep instead of scrolling through.
🚀 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦. You realize most problems aren’t new, just patterns repeating.


4. 𝐇𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐮𝐞.

↳ Willpower and decision-making draw from the same limited pool of mental energy. 
↳ When reading becomes a non-negotiable, your brain saves decision energy for other domains.


It’s not about the number of books.

It’s about becoming the kind of person who keeps showing up for their growth every single day.

- - - - - - - - - - - - 

👉 What’s one habit you’ve stuck with for years?

♻️ Sharing is caring: someone in your network might need to read this. 

➕ By the way, I (Corina Taban) share science-backed strategies for better thinking, stronger influence & smarter leadership.

I love this quote. You know why?


Because talent doesn’t predict success.
 
Mindset does.

Stanford psychologist Carol Dweck found that your 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘧𝘴 about talent matter more than talent itself.

🧠 A 𝐟𝐢𝐱𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐞𝐭 says:

“I was born this way.”
“Failure means I’m not good enough.”
“Feedback = criticism.”

🌱 A 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐭𝐡 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐞𝐭 says:

“I can get better with effort.”
“Failure is data.”
“Feedback helps me learn.”


Here’s the best part:
Your mindset isn’t fixed. You can train it.

Try this:
1. 𝐂𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜. Reframe “I’m bad at this” → “I’m not good at this 𝘺𝘦𝘵.”
2. 𝐅𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬. Celebrate effort and learning, not just wins.
3. 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐠𝐠𝐥𝐞. Most skills feel awkward before they feel natural.
4. 𝐀𝐬𝐤 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬. Swap “Did I do it right?” with “What can I learn?”

The most successful people aren't those who never fail.

They’re the ones who keep learning even when they do.

- - - - - - - - - 

Your turn:
💬 What’s one belief you’ve recently reframed?

♻️ Sharing is caring: someone in your network might need to read this. 

➕ By the way, I (Corina Taban) share science-backed strategies for better thinking, stronger influence & smarter leadership.

Want to build trust in your team?
 

Start with brain chemistry.

According to neuroscience, when people feel seen or supported, their brain releases oxytocin a.k.a. the “bonding hormone.”

Oxytocin boosts collaboration, strengthens social ties, and lowers stress.

In short: it creates the safety people need to do their best work.

Here’s the catch:
You don’t need grand gestures to spark it.


𝐒𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐥, 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬:
👏 A public thank-you in a meeting.
💬 A Slack message spotlighting someone’s impact.
💡 A leader saying, “I saw what you did, and it mattered.”


Each act builds a trust loop that rewires how your team works together.

Recognize people publicly and often.

You’re not just boosting morale.
You’re helping reshape your team’s brain chemistry for the better.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

👉 What’s your go-to way to make your team feel seen?

♻️ Sharing is caring: someone in your network might need to read this. 

➕ By the way, I (Corina Taban) share science-backed strategies for better thinking, stronger influence & smarter leadership.

Feeling stuck today?
Don’t force it at your desk.


When you move, your brain lights up in powerful ways.

Moderate exercise boosts cognitive flexibility, which allows you to:
↳ switch gears,
↳ focus faster,
↳ connect the dots in new ways.

A 20-minute walk can get you back on track.

Step away and see what shifts.

- - - - - - - - - - - - 

👉 Did you move your body today? 

♻️ Sharing is caring: someone in your network might need to read this. 

➕ By the way, I (Corina Taban) share science-backed strategies for better thinking, stronger influence & smarter leadership.

In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence.
 

It’s called 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞.
 
Here’s what it means:

-      If you’re good at your job, you get promoted.
-      You keep getting promoted… until you land in a role where your skills no longer fit.
-      And that’s where most employees get stuck.

 
🔬 Research backs this up:

A study on salespeople in 214 firms showed that top performers were often promoted, but they underperformed as managers. 
 
The very skills that made them great in one role didn’t translate upward.
 
But here’s the good news:
 
𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝.

And the ROI is massive.
 

📊 Studies show that companies investing in leadership development see:

• up to 25% higher organizational performance,
• 700% ROI on average,
• stronger engagement, retention, and innovation.

When you train leaders, you don’t just fix gaps.

You multiply impact across entire teams.

🚀 Leadership programs aren’t a cost.

They’re the best-performing investment your company can make.


- - - - - - - - - - 


👉 When was the last time your company invested in leadership development?

♻️ Sharing is caring: someone in your network might need to read this. 

➕ By the way, I (Corina Taban) build tailor-made science-backed leadership programs for international Tech companies. 

I also share science-backed strategies for better thinking, stronger influence & smarter leadership.

Want to retain top talent?
Here’s how:


Employees don’t just work for a salary.
They expect reciprocity.

In organizational psychology, this is called 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘴𝘺𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵: the unwritten deal between employees and their company.

👉 “If I give you effort, loyalty, and creativity, I expect fair pay, recognition, and growth in return.”

When employees feel the exchange is fair, engagement thrives.

When it breaks?
Trust erodes and talent walks.


🔍 Research shows:
↳ 70% of team engagement is driven by the manager
↳ Breaches reduce trust and raise turnover
↳ Replacing an employee costs 2.5x their annual salary


Here are science-backed ways to strengthen the deal:

• 𝐌𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭 → Don’t assume alignment. Talk expectations.
• 𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐥𝐲 → Feedback reinforces fair exchange.
• 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 → Development signals commitment.
• 𝐁𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐝𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 → Honesty prevents perceived betrayal.
• 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐫𝐬 → Train them to listen, deliver, and follow through.

Reciprocity is simple in theory.

But in practice, it takes clarity, consistency, and courage.

The best retention strategy isn’t free snacks or ping-pong.
It’s a company that keeps its promises.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

👉 What’s the most underrated way to show employees you value them?

♻️ Sharing is caring: someone in your network might need to hear this.

➕ By the way, I (Corina Taban) share science-backed strategies for better thinking, stronger influence & smarter leadership.

Still think success comes from luck?


🧠 Here are 8 practices that wire your brain and behavior for success: 


1/ 𝐆𝐞𝐭 𝐨𝐛𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫.
↳ Small, consistent improvement rewires neural pathways for mastery.
↳ Aim for 1% better every day. Tiny gains compound into massive growth.


2/ 𝐃𝐨 𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫.
↳ Multitasking lowers productivity by up to 40%.
↳ Cut the noise. Choose one meaningful task and do it deeply.


3/ 𝐌𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲.
↳ Growth is invisible before it’s exponential.
↳ Keep watering the roots. Progress hides underground before it blooms.


4/ 𝐓𝐮𝐫𝐧 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞.
↳ Learning without application triggers anxiety and stagnation.
↳ Learn → Apply → Improve.


5/ 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐮𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞.
↳ Speed doesn't drive results; importance does. 
↳ Spend time where it matters most: the long game, not the inbox.


6/ 𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐤 𝐭𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐚 𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐝.
↳ Positive self-talk boosts motivation and performance.
↳ When your mind says “I can’t,” add one word: “yet.”


7/ 𝐔𝐧𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧.
↳ The brain must drop outdated connections to build new ones.
↳ Let go of habits that no longer serve your future self.


8/ 𝐁𝐞 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝.
↳ Acts of kindness release oxytocin, increasing trust and cooperation.
↳ Be the kind of person who lifts others up.


👉 What would you add as #9?


- - - - - - - - - - 

🖼️ Visuals by the talented @mounika.studio (she's on IG, give her a follow! Link in the comments 👇 )

♻️ Sharing is caring: someone in your network might need to read this. 

➕ By the way, I (Corina Taban) share science-backed strategies for better thinking, stronger influence & smarter leadership.

8 Science-Backed Practices for Success

Want your employees to deliver better results?


Reward learning over outcome.

🧠 According to neuroscience research, when we approach challenges with a 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐫’𝐬 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐞𝐭 (driven by curiosity and growth), the brain’s reward system lights up.

Mistakes stop feeling like threats. 
They become data for future decisions.

Feedback stops being personal. 
It becomes fuel for growth.

This shift rewires how people show up at work.

✅ 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬:

Next time a project doesn’t go as planned, ask your team:
“What did we learn here?” before “Where did we fail?”

When learning is safe, performance follows.

- - - - - - - - - - - - 

👉 What’s one way you reward learning in your workplace?

♻️ Sharing is caring: someone in your network might need to read this. 

➕ By the way, I (Corina Taban) share science-backed strategies for better thinking, stronger influence & smarter leadership.

This is what people get wrong about feedback. 👇 
 
 
Most people use negative feedback to correct undesired behavior.

But positive feedback can be a powerful performance accelerator.


🔬 Research in organizational psychology shows:

• Recognition boosts motivation and persistence
• Positive reinforcement drives learning and repetition
• We repeat behaviors that are explicitly acknowledged


👉 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝.

Because it reinforces competence and identity.
And identity is one of the strongest drivers of sustained performance.

High-performing teams don’t just fix errors.

They deliberately:
• Name effective behaviors
• Anchor strengths
• Encourage what should be amplified

𝐈𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐫:
Say it.
Name it.
Reinforce it.

Feedback isn’t only for improving weaknesses.

It’s a tool to amplify strengths.

- - - - - - - - - - - 

👉 What behaviors are you reinforcing this week?

🖼️ Visual by the talented Roberto Ferraro.

♻️ Sharing is caring: someone in your network might need to read this.

Still trying to motivate your team with bonuses or pressure?


Decades of psychology research say there’s a better way.

According to 𝘚𝘦𝘭𝘧-𝘋𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘺, the deepest form of motivation doesn’t come from others.

It comes through three universal psychological needs:

1. 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐲 
↳ the freedom to make meaningful choices.

2. 𝐌𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐲 
↳ the chance to grow, learn, and feel competent.

3. 𝐏𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞 
↳ the sense that what we do matters beyond ourselves.


When these needs are met, motivation becomes self-sustaining.

When they’re missing, even your highest performers disengage.

(Especially your highest performers!)
 

🔍 𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐞’𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐨 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐭:

Audit your environment through these 3 lenses:

🔹 Does my team really have autonomy? Or is it just the illusion of choice?
🔹 Are they learning and growing or just executing?
🔹 Do they know why their work matters? Can they tie it back to the org’s overall mission?

You can’t force people to care. 
But you can create conditions where they do.

--

👉 Audit your own environment this week: where are you strong, and where’s the gap?

♻️ Sharing is caring: someone in your network might need to read this. 

➕ By the way, I (Corina Taban) share science-backed strategies for better thinking, stronger influence & smarter leadership.

taplio

The Battle

Samuel Mwendwa

Corina Taban

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreSamuel Mwendwa's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreCorina Taban's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Samuel Mwendwa

Corina Taban

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);}Samuel Mwendwa's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreCorina Taban's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreSamuel Mwendwa's LinkedIn Performance