Follow Me
Facebook Posts
Do you have an amazing example of an organization that made a deliberate decision to stop something, exit something, or decline something because it did not align with where they were genuinely heading. What did it cost them in the short term? What did it produce over time? What did people inside the organization conclude from watching leadership make that choice?
After 20+ years coaching executives, I've made a decision I didn't expect to make this soon. Effective today, I am being replaced by AI.![]()
![]()
The model has ingested thousands of hours of executive coaching and advising sessions. It never sleeps. It responds in milliseconds.![]()
![]()
It will validate every decision you make, never challenge your blind spots, never sit in uncomfortable silence until you finally say the thing you've been avoiding, and never tell you that the real problem isn't your resume -- it's you.![]()
![]()
It will agree with everything you say and do.![]()
Which means it will help you feel better while you stay exactly where you are.![]()
![]()
Here's what I've learned: the moment that turns a repetitive series of jobs into a career isn't information. It's friction. It's better thinking. The right question at the wrong comfortable moment. A mirror held up at close range.![]()
![]()
AI can't do that. An executive coach will.![]()
![]()
Happy April Fools Day!![]()
![]()
Yes, Intrinsic Matters is open, and the real me is here for you. Your next chapter is waiting. If you're ready for someone who will tell you the truth and help you get where you actually want to be, let's talk.![]()
![]()
Always a human, every time.![]()
![]()
Patrick
Your handbook is answering questions about your culture. Every policy is a statement of belief. About judgment. About trust. About whose interests the rules are actually designed to protect.![]()
This article names seven of them.![]()
What Your Handbook Says About Your Culture. Whether You Meant It To or Not.
lnkd.in
The majority of organizations think their employee handbook is an administrative document, a legal requirement, a set of rules that HR manages while leadership focuses on performance. They fail to rem...
Exceptional people do not leave exceptional organizations. They leave environments that stopped giving them genuine reason to stay. Most organizations convince themselves these people were a poor fit. That explanation tells more about the organization than the people escaping it, and guarantees the same thing will continue happening.![]()
What Is Your Organization Building?
lnkd.in
What Is Your Organization Actually Building? Every organization is building something. The question most leadership teams do not examine carefully or regularly enough is what that something actually i...
Have you ever sat through a team-building event and thought: this is exactly the opposite of what we need?![]()
![]()
If so, read read my latest article: lnkd.in/eFEWj47K
Your people are not unmotivated. They are disconnected. Those are not the same problem. And they do not have the same solution.![]()
![]()
Motivation Without Connection Does Not Last. Here Is What Organizations Keep Missing.
lnkd.in
Running a comprehensive engagement program and still watching performance plateau is one of the more frustrating experiences for organizational leadership. The intentions are right.
Engagement programs do not fail because they are poorly designed.![]()
They fail because of what they are built on top of.![]()
![]()
And when they end, people do not return to where they were. They arrive somewhere more cynical, having confirmed what they already suspected.![]()
![]()
This article is about the conditions that make programs unnecessary in the first place.![]()
Most Engagement Programs Do Not Work. Here Is What Does.
lnkd.in
Most organizations facing an engagement problem reach for the same solution. Perks, recognition platforms, manager training, pulse surveys.
Most organizations do not believe this article is about them.![]()
![]()
Performance-first thinking is rarely a conscious choice. It is what happens when leadership consistently prioritizes, measures, rewards, and tolerates certain things over time. And what it reliably produces is a cost most executive teams have never calculated and would not know where to look for.![]()
![]()
If this describes organizations you know, share it.![]()
![]()
Performance-First Organizations Pay More, Produce Less. Most Never Connect the Two.
lnkd.in
Most organizations do not identify as performance-first. They have values statements, culture initiatives, and engagement programs.
Every leader knows when they are tolerating something wrong.![]()
Far fewer know when they have crossed into something more dangerous: the quiet, learned belief that nothing can be fixed anyway.![]()
Tolerance is still a decision. Acquiescence is what happens when the organization takes that decision away from you without you realizing it.![]()
The article below is about that crossing, why it happens, and what it costs the people and organizations left on the other side of it.![]()
Tolerance Is a Decision. Acquiescence Is the Dangerous Belief That Nothing Can Be Fixed.
lnkd.in
Most leaders can identify the moment they chose to tolerate something they knew was wrong. They remember the calculation.
Your toxic high-performer is not your most valuable employee.![]()
In fact, they may be your most expensive one.![]()
The damage they are doing to everyone around them is real and measurable. And the math that justifies protecting them is almost certainly wrong, because most organizations only calculate part of it.![]()
The article below shows what the full calculation actually looks like.![]()
Your Toxic High-Performer May Be Costing You More Than Your Lowest Performer
lnkd.in
Most organizations have at least one. The person who produces results in a way that costs everyone around them.
At the executive level, competence is the floor, not the ceiling.![]()
![]()
The Gap Isn't Your Qualifications. It's Your Clarity and Positioning.![]()
![]()
Most senior professionals don't have careers; they have a series of jobs, because they spend their time building the wrong thing. More credentials. Deeper expertise. Broader responsibility. And still find themselves watching less qualified peers land the roles, the influence, the compensation that they think should have been theirs.![]()
![]()
This isn't a performance problem. It's a clarity and positioning problem.![]()
![]()
And it's costing you more than you know, because at senior levels, the gap between what you're worth and what the market is paying you isn't arbitrary. It's structural. It's measurable. And it's correctable.![]()
![]()
Does any of this feel familiar:![]()
![]()
You're respected. You're relied upon. You're given projects in many directions. But when the highest-visibility roles are assigned, when compensation structures are set, when succession conversations happen, the outcome doesn't reflect what you think you've built.![]()
![]()
You sense that people around you are being chosen on something beyond merit. You're right. But you haven't been able to name it, much less close it.![]()
![]()
Here's what 25 years working with hundreds of senior executives has made undeniably clear:![]()
![]()
Your job stops being evaluated on what you've done and starts being evaluated on who decision-makers believe you are, and where you can take the organization. Those are entirely different data sets.![]()
![]()
Executives who consistently receive top-tier compensation and advancement haven't just outperformed. They've mastered how their senior-level value is recognized, communicated, and priced in rooms where the consequential decisions about their careers are being made without them present.![]()
![]()
That's the work. Not optics. Not surface-level presence. Rigorous, evidence-based alignment between who you are, what you're genuinely worth, and how that worth gets claimed.![]()
![]()
The question isn't whether you're performing well enough.![]()
![]()
You already know the answer to that.![]()
![]()
The questions are: does the world have an accurate picture of who you are, how you want to be known, and what you're worth; and if not, what is that costing you?
Your organization has been calculating the cost of turnover incorrectly.![]()
![]()
Not slightly. Fundamentally incorrectly.![]()
![]()
The replacement cost is what you can see. What you cannot see are the customers who quietly moved to a competitor after the relationship changed hands. The institutional knowledge that left and cannot be documented or recovered. The team that watched someone leave and began disengaging and considering whether to stay.![]()
![]()
By the time those costs appear, you are already eighteen months behind the decision that caused them. And no one is looking at those numbers.![]()
![]()
The article below shows what the full calculation actually looks like.![]()
![]()
The True Cost of Turnover Is Not What Shows Up in Your HR Report
www.linkedin.com
Most organizations calculate the cost of a resignation as the cost of replacing it. Recruiting fees, onboarding time, the productivity gap while the new hire ramps.