Consulting

Most companies think good managers motivate. But the best ones do something more powerful: They place talent. A new study analyzing 200,000 employees and 30,000 managers across 100 countries found this: Great managers don’t just inspire performance; they reallocate people into roles where they thrive. The result? 13% higher wages over time Stronger internal mobility Long-term boosts to productivity, even after employees leave their team And it’s not just for top performers. Even low performers benefited from exposure to high-flyer managers. What makes these managers different? They spend more time 1:1 with their team They uncover hidden skills They guide people into roles that fit It’s not about managing output. It’s about managing potential. Smart orgs don’t leave talent placement to chance or to HR alone. They turn their best managers into career architects.

🌍 We Can’t Afford to Get Climate Policy Wrong—A Look at the Data Behind What Really Works 🌍 In the race against time to combat climate change, bold promises are everywhere. But here’s the critical question: Are the policies being implemented actually reducing emissions at the scale we need? A groundbreaking study published in Science, cuts through the noise and delivers the insights we desperately need. Evaluating 1,500 climate policies from around the world, the research identifies the 63 most effective ones—policies that have delivered tangible, significant reductions in emissions. What’s striking is that the most successful strategies often involve combinations of policies, rather than single initiatives. Think of it as the ultimate teamwork: when policies like carbon pricing, renewable energy mandates, and efficiency standards are combined thoughtfully, the impact is far greater than any one policy could achieve on its own. It’s a powerful reminder that for climate solutions the whole is indeed greater than the sum of its parts. Moreover, the study’s use of counterfactual emissions pathways is a game changer. By showing what would have happened without these policies, it provides a clear, quantifiable measure of their effectiveness. This is exactly the kind of rigorous evaluation we need to ensure that every policy counts, especially when we’re working against the clock. If we’re serious about meeting the Paris Agreement’s targets, we need to focus on what works—and this research offers a clear roadmap. Let’s champion policies that have proven to make a difference, because we don’t have time to waste on anything less. 🔗 Full study in the comments #ClimateAction #Sustainability #PolicyEffectiveness #ParisAgreement #NetZero #ClimateScience

Hire people BETTER THAN YOU and DIFFERENT TO YOU… Then LEARN FROM THEM. 🙏🏾 Sounds straightforward, doesn't it? Yet, why do so many leaders still struggle to grasp it? It’s because there's often hidden complexity beneath the surface. For example: 👀 Insecurity: Some leaders want to maintain the perception of being the smartest or most capable in the room. Therefore, surrounding themselves with highly skilled individuals could make them feel inadequate or threatened. 🔐 Need for Control: Hiring “less competent” team members could ensure that the leader remains the central figure, exerting control over important matters. 😱 Fear of Challenge: A diverse team can bring different viewpoints that might challenge the leader's ideas and decisions. 🧘🏾♂️ Comfort Zone: Some leaders prefer familiarity and ease, preventing them from being pushed out of their boundaries. ❤️ Misguided Loyalty: Leaders might adopt favouritism and hire people based on personal relationships or loyalties. 🤔 Short-Term Thinking: Hiring less skilled individuals could be a short-sighted approach to save costs or meet immediate needs, ignoring the long-term benefits of a talented and diverse team. 🤷🏾♂️ Lack of Awareness: Some leaders might just not fully recognise the value of diversity or the importance of surrounding themselves with skilled individuals. Leaders like the above ☝🏽are missing out on: 🧠 Amplified Intelligence: “Fuse Minds" Surrounding yourself with smarter people boosts team intelligence. Just like a puzzle, different pieces fit together to create a whole that's stronger than its parts. 🚀 Fast-Track Growth: “Learn from Experts" Learning from the best accelerates personal growth. Imagine being on a rocket powered by knowledge and experience – you'll reach your goals faster. 🤔 Constant Innovation: “Open Doors" Humility opens doors to innovation. Acknowledging that you don't know everything encourages openness to fresh ideas and creative solutions. 🏋️♂️ Informed Choices: “Embrace Thought Variety" Embracing diversity of thought leads to well-rounded decisions. Different perspectives catch what others might miss, reducing blind spots. 🤝 Unified Power: “Flourish in Collaboration” Collaboration flourishes when skills vary. Strength lies in unity, and a mix of talents creates a powerhouse of cooperation. 🌱 Trust Building: “Strengthen Culture" Inclusive leadership fosters loyalty and trust. Encouraging growth shows you value your team members, creating a supportive environment. 🚀 Ensured Continuity: “Smooth Transition" Passing the baton ensures continuity. When your team can carry the torch, you're free to explore new horizons without being tied down. In short, the aim of any great leader is to make your daily responsibilities redundant. This is best achieved by hiring people better than you, and those that share a different perspective. Empower them, learn from them and the rest will take care of itself 🦋

I’ve had 4 legal battles since starting my business. Could I have avoided them? Probably. But to be honest, I didn't have the funds to pay a proper lawyer, or the network of founders to ask the right questions to. I don't want that to happen to you. Here are 5 clauses I put in my contracts that might help you protect your work, your business and most importantly.. your sanity ↓ #1 Non-cancellable, non-refundable contracts. This shouldn’t even be an issue if you qualify your clients properly. BUT if someone signs, onboards, and then ghosts? We still get paid. And so should you 🤗 #2 Immediate or short payment terms Most businesses accept 30-to 90-day payment terms. I don’t. You wouldn’t work for 3 months without pay—so why should your business? Cash flow is your business’s lifeline. Protect it. #3 While we’re on payment terms… Your contract should include: → Interest on late invoices. → A clause that stops work if invoices aren’t cleared. → A guarantee that if a client delays the project, you still get paid. Your time isn’t free! #4 Your IP stays YOURS. Anything we bring into the agreement at Klowt stays ours. Anything we create for you is yours. Simple. I once ran a training session, and the client recorded it—then tried to sell it behind a paywall. Now, our contract states a £10,000 fine per breach. (And for that particular case, per breach = per view. 😅) #5 Don't work with d*ckheads. This isn't a legal clause, more legal... advice? 🤣 If someone is giving you red flags in any way at the beginning of your relationship, do not work with them. This could include but not limited to: - Focusing on immediate ROI. - Cost or discounts being a primary concern. - Pushing for work to kick off before contracts or payments. - Reaching out at inappropriate times - or in inappropriate ways. - Delaying initial payments. Legally binding contracts are a good insurance policy, but they're lengthy and expensive to implement if you actually have to go to court. So the best LEGAL advice I can give you as a 2x founder is, don't work with d*ckheads. And learn from my mistakes. It's a lot cheaper than learning from your own... trust me 😂. Was this helpful? 💜 I write a 2x weekly newsletter for founders and freelancers on topics like this. Join us here: https://lnkd.in/ejDbD94R

𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝘁𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲. Because most people explain it from the inside out: policies, councils, standards, stewardship. But the business does not buy any of that. The business buys outcomes: → trustworthy KPIs → vendor and partner data you can actually use → faster financial close → fewer reporting escalations → smoother M&A integration → AI you can deploy without creating risk debt Most AI programs fail for boring reasons: nobody owns the data, quality is unknown, access is messy, accountability is missing. 𝗦𝗼 𝗹𝗲𝘁’𝘀 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗳𝘆 𝗶𝘁. 𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀: → ownership → quality → access → accountability 𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝗶𝗻 𝟰 𝗹𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀: 1. Data Products (what the business consumes) → a named dataset with an owner and SLA → clear definitions + metric logic → documented inputs/outputs and intended use → discoverable in a catalog → versioned so changes don’t break reporting 2. Data Management (how products stay reliable) → quality rules + monitoring (freshness, completeness, accuracy) → lineage (where it came from, where it’s used) → master/reference data alignment → metadata management (business + technical) → access controls and retention rules 3. Data Governance (who decides, who is accountable) → data ownership model (domain owners, stewards) → decision rights: who can change KPI definitions, thresholds, and sources → issue management: triage, escalation paths, resolution SLAs → policy enforcement: what’s mandatory vs optional → risk and compliance alignment (auditability, approvals) 4. Data Operating Model (how you scale across the enterprise) → domain-based setup (data mesh or not, but clear domains) → operating cadence: weekly issue review, monthly KPI governance, quarterly standards → stewardship at scale (roles, capacity, incentives) → cross-domain decision-making for shared metrics → enablement: templates, playbooks, tooling support If you want to start fast: Pick the 10 metrics that run the business. Assign an owner. Define decision rights + escalation. Then build the data products around them. ↓ 𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘆 𝗮𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗮𝘀 𝗔𝗜 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀, 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗮 𝗹𝗼𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗺𝘆 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘄𝘀𝗹𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿: https://lnkd.in/dbf74Y9E

Stuck in an endless loop of client changes? Lost track of what revision this constitutes? Yeah. Been there. Done that. The secret? It's not about saying no. It's about saying yes to the right things upfront. Every project that goes sideways starts the same way: Vague agreements. Fuzzy boundaries. Good intentions. Six weeks later you're bleeding money and everyone's frustrated. Here's my framework after 30 years of running two 8-figure businesses: The SOW is your salvation. Not some boilerplate template. A real document that covers: • Exact deliverables (not "design work" but "3 homepage concepts, 2 rounds of revisions") • Hours of operation ("We respond M-F, 9-5 PST. Weekend requests get Monday responses") • Revision rounds spelled out ("Round 1 includes up to 5 changes. Round 2 includes 3.") • Feedback cycles defined ("48-hour turnaround for client feedback or the project may be delayed or additional fees may be incurred") But here's what most people miss— Don't work on client notes immediately. Client sends 37 pieces of feedback at 11pm Friday? Producer sends conflicting notes from the CEO? Marketing wants one thing, sales wants another? Stop. Collect everything first. Resolve the conflicts. Get on the phone and discuss it with your client to get alignment. Separate the "have to haves" from the "nice to haves". Then present unified changes. "Based on all feedback received, here are the 8 changes we'll implement. This constitutes revision round 2 of 3." Watch how fast the random requests stop. No extra work that goes unappreciated. No more feelings of being taken advantage of. Communicate before the crisis, prevents the crisis from happening. "Just so you know, we're entering round 2. You have one more included. After that, it's $X per additional round." No surprises. No awkward money conversations. No resentment. Scope creep isn't a them problem. It's a you problem. And that's good news, because that means you are in control. They're not trying to take advantage. They just don't know where the boundaries are because you never drew them. Draw the lines early. Communicate them clearly. Everyone wins. What's your most painful scope creep story? What boundary would've prevented it? Small Business Builders #projectmanagement #clientmanagement #businessgrowth

70% of change initiatives fail. (And it's rarely because the idea was bad.) Here's what actually kills transformation: You picked the wrong change model for the job. It's like performing surgery with a hammer. Sure, you're using a tool. But it's the wrong one. I've watched brilliant CEOs tank their companies this way: Using individual coaching (ADKAR) for company-wide transformation. Result: 200 people change. 2,000 don't. Running a massive 8-step program for a simple process fix. Result: 6 months wasted. Team exhausted. Nothing changes. Forcing top-down mandates when they needed subtle nudges. Result: Rebellion. Resentment. Resignation letters. Here's what nobody tells you about change: The size of your change determines your approach. Real examples from the field: 💡 Startup pivoting product: → Used Lewin's 3-stage (unfreeze old way, change, refreeze) → 3 months. Clean transition. Team aligned. 💡 Enterprise going digital: → Used Kotter's 8-step process → Created urgency first. Built coalition. Enabled action. → 18 months later: $50M in new revenue. 💡 Sales team adopting new CRM: → Used Nudge Theory → Made old system harder to access → Put new system as browser homepage → 95% adoption in 2 weeks. Zero complaints. The expensive truth: Wrong model = wasted months + burned budgets + broken trust Right model = faster adoption + sustained results + energized teams Warning signs you're using the wrong model: • High activity, low progress • People comply but don't commit • Changes revert within weeks • Energy drops as you push harder • "This too shall pass" becomes the motto Match your medicine to your ailment: Small behavior change? Nudge it. Individual performance? ADKAR it. Cultural shift? Influence it. Full transformation? Kotter it. Enterprise overhaul? BCG it. Stop treating every change like a nail. Start choosing the right tool for the job. Your next change initiative depends on it. Your team's trust demands it. Your company's future requires it. Save this. Share it with your leadership team. Because the next time someone says "people resist change," you'll know the truth: People don't resist change. They resist the wrong approach to change. P.S. Want a PDF of my Change Management cheat sheet? Get it free: https://lnkd.in/dv7biXUs ♻️ Repost to help a leader in your network. Follow Eric Partaker for more operational insights. — 📢 Want to lead like a world-class CEO? Join my FREE TRAINING: "The 8 Qualities That Separate World-Class CEOs From Everyone Else" Thu Jul 3rd, 12 noon Eastern / 5pm UK time https://lnkd.in/dy-6w_rx 📌 The CEO Accelerator starts July 23rd. 20+ Founders & CEOs have already enrolled. Learn more and apply: https://lnkd.in/dwndXMAk

Michael Porter’s three generic strategies are well-known and applied across the world for decades. But did you know he actually defined four? Time to revisit this classic. As one of the most popular strategy tools ever, Porter’s decades-old three generic strategies—differentiation, cost leadership, and focus—is a classic. Its popularity arises largely from its simplicity and general applicability. As it identifies a set of generic strategies, it is applicable to basically every imaginable industry and company. While the three strategies are well-known, Porter also presents them as four rather than three strategies, leading to the matrix shown in the visual. It acknowledges two key dimensions: Scope and Competitive Advantage. Scope refers to the size of the market that is targeted, which can range from very narrow (Niche Market, could even be one or few customers) to very broad (Total Market, often millions of clients all over the world)—and anything in between. Competitive Advantage refers to the main reason customers buy your product or service compared to that of the competition: because it is cheaper (Cost), or because it offers benefits others don’t (Differentiation). This generates four Generic Strategies: Cost Leadership (Cost - Total Market) Description: Offer the lowest possible price to an as broad as possible market Examples: Ryanair, Aldi, Action, Primark Differentiation (Differentiation - Total Market) Description: Offer a distinct, value added product or service to a broad market Examples: Apple, BMW, Coca Cola, Netflix Differentiation Focus (Differentiation - Niche Market) Description: Offer a unique product or service that is highly valuable to a select market. Examples: Ferrari, McKinsey, Rolex, Prada Cost Focus (Cost - Niche Market) Description: Offer the cheapest solution to a select, often local, niche market Examples: mostly unknown small companies such as freelance construction workers, house cleaners and website designers competing on price Porter’s main recommendation is: choose!  Why? Because if you don’t choose, you get “stuck in the middle” Being stuck in the middle is no good for two reasons. First, customers don’t get what kind of company you are and why they should buy your products or services. Second, because trying to combine elements of 2, 3 or 3 even 4 strategies is extremely hard to do, because they require different processes, competences and ways of organizing. So, where are you in this matrix? Do you follow any of the four strategies or are you stuck in the middle? → Join my community and subscribe to my Soulful Strategy newsletter here:https://lnkd.in/e_ytzAgU #strategicplanning #changemanagement #marketresearch

This isn't just another corporate restructuring. It's different this time: → These aren't juniors - they're cutting SENIOR roles → Many have 5+ years of experience → This is happening during peak consulting season Why?: → AI does in minutes what took analysts weeks → Clients now have their own data teams → SaaS platforms replaced implementation work → Premium fees are compressing as analysis gets commoditized The future of consulting: → Small, elite teams replace massive pyramids → On-demand talent replaces fixed benches → Only truly strategic work survives For the Big 4 firms holding onto the old model? EY just showed us their future. The question isn't whether consulting will change. It's whether they can change fast enough.

Great seeing our paper out in Science! Stefano Carattini, John List and I argue that policy evaluation should be combined with a causal analysis of public support. Starting point of our argument is that policies that are generally considered socially desirable by the scientific community are not always popular among voters, because of a lack of understanding or biased beliefs. Congestion charges and carbon taxes are a case in point. However, recent empirical studies have shown that, in cases like these, experiencing the policy may lead voters to correct their beliefs and increase their support. A credible policy evaluation may further help voters to learn about the policy's effects. Our article describes how credible policy evaluation can be fruitfully combined with a causal analysis of public support. If it becomes more widely documented that opposition to sound policies dissipates when voters experience a policy, then policy-makers may be more inclined to experiment with such policies. Learning when and why public support does not increase after policy implementation would be very important as well. Indeed, this may even lead to a change in the consensus about the policy's desirability, for instance when scientists learn that they overlooked some negative aspects of the policy that voters strongly care about. Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/ed2EAj9G Science Magazine