How to Close the Strategy Gap Before Month 7

You've diagnosed the problem. Now here's how to fix it.

In Part 1, we unpacked why 31% of first-time CHROs are fired within 18 months and why doing a "good job" on HR metrics isn't enough. The issue? A strategy gap that starts as unclear language, becomes structure, and ends with a quiet exit.

In Part 2, we're giving you the playbook.

Scott Morris (former CHRO, founder of Propulsion AI) and Jackson Lynch break down the three concrete moves you can make starting Monday morning to close the gap before month 7, before the CEO's tone shifts, before the compliments land oddly, before the narrative moves against you.

This isn't about working harder. It's about working differently.

What You'll Learn

The fundamental shift:

• Why sounding like the CFO doesn't make you strategic (and what does)
• The difference between presenting about your function vs. diagnosing the business
• How to move from "here's what HR is doing" to "here's where the strategy will break"

What co-authorship actually looks like:

• Three things strategic CHROs do consistently that operational CHROs don't
• How to articulate where strategy breaks before it shows up in results
• The difference between being in the room vs. being inside the business model

The three-move playbook:

1. Contract altitude explicitly: Define "strategic" with your CEO in business terms, not air quotes
2. Translate strategy into constraints: Identify where the business will break and move talent to fix it
3. Redesign your operating model: Build systems that keep you upstream instead of reactive

The execution traps to avoid:

• Moving too fast without trust
• Trying to change everything at once
• Confusing strategic language with strategic contribution
• Neglecting operational excellence while chasing relevance
• Thinking this is a solo act (why CFO/COO partnerships matter)

Key Quotes

"A strategic CHRO doesn't deliver a section of the deck. They shape the story the deck is built around."

"Access is earned by demonstrating that you see things others don't. Not by asking for a seat at the table."

"The shift isn't do more. The shift is do fewer things that remove constraints."

"If you think your role is building people up, you go one way. If you think your role is driving the business forward by building people up, you go a different direction."

"Organizations where CFOs and CHROs co-lead initiatives are 2.4x more likely to achieve transformation outcomes."

"You cannot neglect operational excellence while chasing strategic relevance. Operational excellence is the foundation. It's not the ceiling."

The Diagnostic Questions

• Is your people strategy inside the business model or sitti

Transcript

Is your people strategy inside the business model or sitting next to it? Are you being rewarded for reliability over authorship? Are you being evaluated on enterprise outcomes? Are you mistaking activity for leverage?

If there is one shift that people can make from listening to us, that would be it.

Hey there, senior leader, and welcome to the Talent Sherpa Podcast. This is where senior leaders come to rethink how human capital really works. I’m your host, Jackson Lynch, and today I’m joined by my co-host, my friend, my spiritual guru, Scott Morris.

He’s a former CHRO, he has the battle stars to prove it. And now he is the founder and CEO of Propulsion AI. It’s an AI solution that is tailor made for HR, and it’s an easy starting point if you’re looking for somewhere to begin your AI journey.

Now, for those who did not listen to last week, make sure you do, because this is part two of our series on the strategy gap. That’s the quiet pattern that ends CHRO tenures without a headline. Last episode we diagnosed the problem. Today we’re going to share with you how to fix it.

Let’s do a quick recap before we get going, Jackson.

The strategy gap, that term that we’re using, is structural. It’s not personal. CEOs will have a standardized understanding of what a CFO does, but CHRO expectations are kind of all over the map. And those expectations are largely going to depend on the CEO’s past experiences, their level of sophistication, and their personal definition of strategic.

So if a CHRO gets hired into an undefined version of the CHRO role, gravity is going to start to pull them toward tactical work. And if they’re good at what they do, it’s even worse because they deliver results, they earn trust, and they still lose confidence because they are running a parallel narrative instead of extending the CEO’s narrative.

That is exactly right.

We define four diagnostic questions. Is your people strategy inside the business model or sitting next to it? Are you being rewarded for reliability over authorship? Are you being evaluated on enterprise outcomes or how well HR runs? And are you mistaking activity for leverage?

So today we’re going to answer the question that every CHRO who’s listening is hopefully asking: what the heck do I do about it?

Let’s pull apart that word you just used a second ago, authorship. Because today we’re going to define what co-authorship actually means. We’re going to describe what good looks like with precision. And we’re going to give you a Monday morning playbook, the concrete moves that you can make right now.

We will. And before we dive in, though, let’s just ask you out there in the listening audience for a favor. Please subscribe. Leave a comment on your favorite platform. Doesn’t take very long. It grows the pod, and it brings this content to more leaders who candidly need it.

And if you like the pod and you like the subjects that we tackle here, you are going to love the CHRO Chronicles newsletter that is live right now at mytalentsherpa.com. It’s written by CHROs for CHROs. It’s only 30 bucks a month. And we start by diving into building alignment with your CEO.

It’s described as a game changer by the people that are subscribing right now. There’s been a huge early response, and it’ll help you level up if you’re ready to do it.

I also described it as a game changer, but since I’m writing it, it’s probably not nearly as impactful as other people saying that.

Hey, let’s start first back into the subject matter here with the fundamental shift. Because most CHROs, when they hear things like be more strategic, they make the same mistake. I think they try to sound like the CFO.

They learn the financial language, which is good. They put ROI on everything, also good. They build business cases with payback periods and net present value, amazing. That’s not wrong. Financial fluency absolutely matters, but it’s not the goal.

Sounding like finance doesn’t make you strategic, it does make you a translator.

So I’d say the actual shift is from presenting about your function to diagnosing the business. That’s what we’re looking for.

It’s from here’s what HR is doing to here’s where the strategy will break, and here’s what we need to change. It’s looking at a business through a talent lens, predicting outcomes, identifying root causes, and then prescribing the action and the tactic that matters to meet the moment.

A strategic CHRO doesn’t deliver a section of the deck, they shape the story the deck is already built around.

That is a big claim. Do what you do, Jackson. Make that concrete.

That’s exactly where we’re going.

So what does co-authorship actually look like in practice?

I think a CHRO operating as a co-author can do probably three things really consistently.

First, they can articulate where the strategy will break inside the organization before it shows up in results. They don’t use words like engagement is down, but they do say things like decision velocity in the product organization has dropped 40% since the reorg. And if we don’t fix role clarity in the next 60 days, then the quarter three launch is going to slip.

That’s a different focus than a lot of CHROs have.

It is. It’s completely different.

Second, they shape decisions before the priorities lock in, not after the consequences appear. It goes way upstream. So they’re in the room when the strategy is being formed, not afterwards when it’s been handed down for change management.

How do you get in that room?

Well, here’s how you don’t do it. You don’t wait to be invited. You show up with insight that changes the conversation.

That’s how you get invited, because you become indispensable. A CEO doesn’t invite you into hard decisions until you prove that you see things and they don’t.

And third, I think they change capital allocation, leadership development, and operating priorities with their insight, not the influence. They actually change the outcomes. The CEO moves resources because of what the CHRO surfaced.

It’s a pretty high bar.

Look, it is, but I go all the way back to my Nestlé days, and there was a situation where we had the P&L was draining cash, and no one really knew what was going on. Normally the region vice presidents would pull in their finance team to figure it out.

Finance wasn’t invited to this meeting, my team was. Why? Because we knew how the business actually worked, and we provided insights that others didn’t have in the business.

And you know, Carrie Moyes and Rihanna Barr, like we had over a dozen current CHROs that were in that team. So the fact that we had a really, really good team probably helped. But that is how you are playing in a room that you normally wouldn’t have been invited into.

But I guess here’s the thing. When it’s working, the CHRO’s value is felt before it is explained. The CEO experiences the people person as a partner in the narrative, not a reporter of the aftermath.

But let me push on that a little bit, Jackson, because a lot of CHROs are not you. They don’t have that level of sophistication yet. They’re building toward it. And I think a lot of CHROs might say, I just don’t have access to that level of the conversation. The CEO doesn’t include me in the strategy formation.

Well, I’m gonna put aside this old self-esteem issue and the victim mentality that we have. Nobody else is waiting for some sort of manna from heaven to jump in.

I’m not gonna debate it. It is often true. But here’s the harder question that you need to ask yourself.

Have you earned the access or are you waiting for it to be granted?

Well, what do you mean by earned?

Access is earned by demonstrating that you see things that others don’t. Not by asking for the proverbial seat at the table, which is dumb. It’s a participation trophy in corporate view.

But you get brought in because you are bringing something to the table that changes the conversation. I think it was PricewaterhouseCoopers a few years back that found that 60% of CEOs view their CHRO as a strategic partner that is second only to the CFO, but second also means something.

I’d argue the CFO’s value is assumed. The CHRO is still proving it. And the CHROs who break through, they’re not waiting for permission. They are creating demand for their perspective.

Let’s get a little bit even more specific about this. What do you actually see in high performing companies where the CHRO is operating at the level that we’re talking about?

Yeah.

Well, it’s different in every company, but I think you do see some repeatable markers.

First, the CHRO starts board conversations with the CEO’s strategy narrative, not with HR metrics. They open with here’s where we’re going, here’s what has to be true about our talent leadership to get there, and here’s the current gap.

The HR metrics come later, if at all, and they’re evidence, they’re not the headline. That’s a structural change in how that presentation is built.

It’s more than that, Scott. It’s a structural change in how the CHRO thinks and how the CEO and CFO think. You can’t present that way unless you’ve done the work to understand where the strategy is vulnerable.

I think the second thing that you see is CHROs can point to the pivotal roles and quantify whether the best talent is concentrated there or whether the company is running on averages.

This is where a lot of HR functions fall down, if I can be critical a little bit. They treat all roles equally. We need to be more capitalistic, less socialist. We need to be like, the same hiring process, the same development investment, the same performance management.

But there are roles that matter more than others in the business.

The research here is clear as well. A very small number of roles drives disproportionate value. McKinsey found that top performers in pivotal roles can be up to 800% more productive than average performers. That’s a big number.

Well, I think we get overly concerned about playing defense. We’re worried about how people are going to react to it rather than thinking about what is really going to differentiate.

I think the question really isn’t do we have good talent. It’s do we have the right talent and the right roles?

That’s exactly right. And most companies can’t answer the question, Scott.

They can tell you about headcount. They can talk about turnover. They can talk about engagement. These are all nice things, but they’re all rear view mirror.

What they can’t tell you is whether their best people are concentrated in the roles that actually move the business forward.

Like if there is one shift that people can make from listening to us, that would be it. Start playing offense.

I think that’s a great way of phrasing it.

I guess the third thing that a CHRO can do is they can describe leadership like a COO describes operational throughput. Where do decisions slow down? Where does the rework happen? Where does most alignment break?

Because I think most leadership conversations are about individual leaders. Who’s performing and who needs coaching.

A co-author CHRO talks about leadership instead as a system. What’s the capacity of our leadership to make good decisions fast, and what is creating drag?

And when all of that is working, I think the board hears one story. Capital and capability is one engine. CEO, then the CFO, and then the CHRO.

It’s not a finance presentation, then an HR presentation. One integrated narrative about how resources and talent combine to execute the strategy.

So that’s the target state. That’s where we want everybody to get to.

Let’s talk about how we actually get there. What are the moves?

There are, I think for us, three moves. And these aren’t theoretical. These are things that you can start with this week, Monday morning.

Yeah, move one, Scott. I think this is maybe the most important thing to do. It’s where I start my CHRO Ascent Academy.

And that is, how do you contract the altitude explicitly? So, like I talk about all the time. What do you think it means?

Well, because I listen to you and because we have this conversation going on, I bet my definition is probably similar to yours.

It means sitting down with the CEO and specifically and deliberately defining what that term strategic actually means in business terms. Not with air quotes, “be more strategic,” but what are the specific outcomes, the specific risks, the specific decisions that you’re expected to shape?

That common understanding, and the thoughtful process that delivers it, I think that’s what I mean by contract altitude explicitly.

So help us. Give us an example of what that conversation might sound like in real life.

Okay, so you say, I want to make sure we’re aligned on what you need from me.

That’s where it starts with your CEO. Not HR operations. I’ll make sure that the trains run, I’ll make sure that the things happen, but I’m talking about the enterprise level contribution.

What are the three risks that you need to see before they show up in the results?

What decisions should I be influencing before they’re final?

What would make you say a year from now that this was a really effective strategic partnership between us?

Okay. Most CEOs aren’t ready for that. So what happens if the CEO can’t answer it?

So you’re gonna help them answer it, but let’s not move so fast that we miss the learning, because you just learned something.

You learned that the role is massively undefined in that CEO’s mind. And if you don’t start now to answer those questions with your CEO, then the organization is gonna define the role for you based on legacy expectations.

So you’re suggesting we propose the definition?

You’ve got to start with, do they have one? And if your assessment is they don’t, then yes, you propose a definition.

You say, look, here’s what I’m thinking that our strategic conversation should be. Here’s what I’m gonna focus on. Here’s what I’m gonna stop doing or delegate so that I can operate at this level.

How does that match with your thinking about what we need in the business?

So I’ll tell you what. We’ve all had good and bad stages of our career. And where I struggled most in my first CHRO job is being too afraid to have that conversation.

I didn’t think about it quite as clearly as you and I are talking about it now, but I knew that there was a miss.

So why do most CHROs not even have the conversation?

So I think there’s a variety of reasons. One is that we don’t yet understand how the business actually runs.

I think that’s a conversation you can have with the CFO. And without explicitly saying, teach me how the business runs, I think there’s a learning you can have from the CFO about how the business actually makes money and what the levers are that are important to move.

But I think the second reason that would probably be most prominent is that most CHROs assume the role is defined, and then they discover too late that it wasn’t.

And so the implicit expectations still get enforced. You learn about them when you’re failing to meet them.

That’s not the best time to do it.

And let me double click on something there. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve sat down with finance people and said, teach me what you think I need to know.

Help me understand where you are struggling with your confidence that we’re gonna be executing it, and let’s dive down into why.

And that’s how you end up having the conversation around the talent lens against the business strategy.

And if you approach it with humility, most people, as long as you share with them up front what you’re trying to get from it, respond well.

If the CFO doesn’t want to share that with you, screw that. You’re in the wrong spot.

I’ve not met even the jerkiest CFOs, I’ve never found one that doesn’t respond well to: hey, let me make your job and your execution better by teaching me, so that I can reinforce through my lens what you’re seeing through yours.

Yeah, 100%.

Jackson, let me push us forward into the second move.

So the first move was contract the altitude explicitly. The second move is translate strategy into constraints, and then translate the constraints into people moves.

Talk about that a little bit.

So I think you have to look at the business strategy and ask the question that most of us avoid.

Where does this break inside the organization?

Not what does HR need to do to support it. That, in my view, is the wrong frame.

The right frame is where will this actually fail? So you’re looking for the human system failure points.

Yeah, exactly. And when you reduce it to a small number of variables that you can actually move, things like decision velocity, which is how fast you can make and execute decisions.

Role clarity, do people know what they own.

Leadership throughput, do we have enough capacity at the right levels.

My favorite, talent density and pivotal roles. Are the best people where they need to be to matter most?

Incentives that create drag, where are we rewarding work that works against the strategy?

Those are the kinds of things to look at.

That’s a much shorter list than most HR agendas.

That’s the point. The shift isn’t do more, the shift is do fewer things that remove constraints.

Okay.

And once you’ve identified those constraints, you start moving talent like a portfolio, not a population.

You put your best people where execution matters most, which is a hard thing to argue against, and yet most companies don’t do it.

And this is where CHROs have to be willing to make very uncomfortable moves.

What kind of uncomfortable moves are you thinking?

Moving a high performer out of a role where they are succeeding into a role where they are actually needed.

Another example might be exiting a leader who’s really well liked, even a culture carrier, who’s creating decision drag because of whatever peccadilloes they happen to have.

Another one is reallocating headcount from a function that’s overstaffed relative to its strategic importance.

You know, those are the kind of moves that create friction in the business.

They do. But if the strategy is real, those moves aren’t optional. That’s the job, Scott.

The CHRO who avoids them to preserve harmony is optimizing for the wrong thing.

You know what strikes me as we’re talking about that? The real root cause is how you think about the role.

If you think about your role as building people up, then you go one way.

If you think about your role as driving the business forward by building people up, by getting them in the right roles, you go a different direction.

Yeah. Effectiveness comes before efficiency, comes before defensibility. And I would argue that most of us approach our roles with that order inversed.

Here’s what move three is.

I think you need to redesign your operating model so that the altitude becomes inevitable.

So do you want to start us off with this one?

This is hard.

Yeah.

Well, I think the focus here is on building systems that keep you upstream and not reactive to situations.

And you’ve said it before, and I like it. The best evidence is what your calendar is filled with.

If it’s filled with escalations and approvals and one off requests, then you’re not running an operating model. You’re kind of running a service desk.

So it’s all about the calendar?

Well, I mean, I think the calendar is good evidence.

It’s about designing what’s on the calendar instead of letting it happen to you.

Build fixed rhythms that pull you into strategic conversations. A weekly enterprise risk review with your CEO, for example. Or a monthly talent portfolio review with your operators. A quarterly narrative that ties talent moves to the strategy.

Those sound like very specific meetings.

Well, they have to be specific. Vague intentions to be more strategic get swallowed up by operational gravity. Specific recurring commitments create structure that survives the chaos.

Like another critical change is to move from decks to decision briefs. And I know this is a new concept here, so let me unpack that a little bit.

A decision brief is one page. Here’s the situation. Here is what we recommend. Here are the trade-offs, which no one ever talks about, but every decision has a trade-off unless you haven’t thought about it very well. And here’s what we need from you.

You can cover three decisions if you follow this in the time it takes to walk through one deck.

How about reporting? How about we reduce reporting and increase diagnosis?

Most HR reporting tells leadership what happened. It’s in the rear view mirror. Diagnosis tells leadership what it means, and then what to do about it as you move forward.

I like that as a concept. Give us an example of that, of the difference.

Okay.

Reporting: turnover in engineering is up 15% quarter over quarter.

Diagnosis: turnover in engineering is up 15%. It’s concentrated in senior engineers with two to three years of tenure. Exit interviews point to unclear career paths post reorg. If we don’t address it, we are going to lose the institutional knowledge needed for platform migration. Here are the three options along with the trade-offs.

You get the point. This is the same data. It’s a completely different value.

So the data is kind of table stakes. The insight is what earns the seat.

I would say it earns the voice in the debate, but yes, fair enough.

Now let’s flip this and talk about execution traps, because all this stuff is gonna require us to be really thoughtful. Because even with the right playbook, there are predictable ways to stumble as you move forward.

Let me kick us off one because I want to go to the one that we talk about a lot, which is trust.

If you move too fast without enough trust, you’re at risk. Everything we talked about in this episode and the previous episode requires the CEO to believe that you see things clearly. If you haven’t built that foundation, then your strategic assertions land as overreach.

So there’s a sequencing issue in your view?

I think so.

You’ve got to earn the right to be heard before you can change the conversation. And that might mean a few months of demonstrating insights on smaller things before you push for enterprise level access.

You’ve got to gauge that with what you’re getting back from your CEO, and sometimes your CFO as well.

Let me double click on something I think is really important on that point, though.

What you are getting that enterprise insight about matters. This isn’t about fixing operational issues because that actually hardens your altitude.

It is about a small problem with a searing insight that you can then expand into larger problems with larger searing insights, if that makes sense.

Makes 100% sense, and I think it’s a good double click.

It’s really about: here’s what we’re not achieving in the business. Here’s what I think the root cause of it is that relates to people. Here’s what we could do differently that is going to unlock that result for us.

Yeah.

So let me take trap two. Trying to change everything at once.

I have fallen guilty to this literally every job I’ve ever had because you know what it looks like. You want to dive into it.

But the playbook has three moves. You don’t make all three at the same time. You start with contracting altitude, that unlocks permission for the rest.

So, what do you think is the third trap?

Confusing strategic language with strategic attribution.

I’ve seen a lot of CHROs who learn to talk about human capital ROI and workforce planning and talent analytics. It’s the right vocabulary, but they’re still presenting about their function. They’re not diagnosing the business.

The language matters less than the orientation.

The question to ask is: are you explaining what HR is doing, or are you surfacing where the business is going to break?

Yeah. It’s about being a business leader, not a functional one.

And here’s another. Forgetting to deliver the basics. And I know this one bites a little bit hard.

You cannot neglect operational excellence while you’re chasing strategic relevance.

If payroll’s broken and you own payroll, which you shouldn’t, but if you do. If recruiting is slow. If employee issues aren’t getting resolved. Those are the ticket to ride.

Operational excellence is the foundation. It’s not the ceiling.

Yeah, I think you’re 100% right to call that out. The goal isn’t to stop being good at doing the HR things. It’s to stop letting the operational things crowd out, or be the definition, probably a better way to say it, be the definition of the value that you contribute.

Yeah.

And here’s the very last one. Thinking that this is a solo act.

The most effective CHROs that I know and work with and coach, they build really, really tight partnerships with the CFO and the COO, or whatever your organization looks like, those equivalents.

In fact, I’ve seen research from, I think it’s called Deloitte, but I might have butchered the pronunciation. They found that organizations where CFOs and CHROs co lead initiatives are 2.4 times more likely to achieve transformation outcomes.

And if you want to read more on that topic, read the book Talent Wins by Ram Charan. It really underscores that whole point.

Yeah, that’s a good one.

Your point makes a lot of sense because the CFO controls the money and the COO controls the operations. And it should be that the CHRO sees the human systems that move throughout the business.

And when those three positions, those three perspectives are integrated, you get one enterprise narrative instead of three functional ones.

That’s right. And it doesn’t happen by accident. A partnership doesn’t. You have to build it deliberately.

Regular one on ones with your CFO to align on workforce cost and investment, which is not the same as “how is my team servicing you.” I’ve seen that mistake over and over and over.

Joint reviews with a COO on where leadership drag is slowing execution. Again, not a checklist of activities.

That whole shared ownership of enterprise level outcomes is really where you need to focus.

So, all right, senior leaders. I think it’s time to land this point.

So here is your Talent Sherpa summary. As Scott always says about this topic, altitude is a choice for pilots, but a prerequisite for CHROs.

You know, I’ve literally never said that, but I am a pilot, and so maybe I should start saying that.

Let me do three key takeaways, Jackson.

Co-authorship means diagnosing the business, not presenting about your function.

You have to define the word strategic explicitly and thoughtfully and deliberately with your CEO. If you don’t do that, the organization is gonna define the role for you.

Third, you’ve got to find where strategy breaks inside of the organization, and then you’ve got to move talent to fix it, even when it creates friction, even when it’s uncomfortable.

And lastly, you’ve got to build an operating model that keeps you upstream instead of reactive.

Yeah, and I guess putting a finer point on that, remember the through line from the last episode.

Finance had the learning path, courtesy of external forces. HR didn’t.

You’re building that discipline yourself, and that’s way harder. But it’s also what separates CHROs who create value from those who administer a function.

So that’s a wrap on our two part series on the strategy gap.

I want to thank you all so much for tuning in to the Talent Sherpa Podcast. This is, as you know, where senior leaders come to rethink how human capital really works.

And a quick shout out to one of our favorite listeners. Hello, Julie from Austin. Thank you for being a part of our Talent Sherpa community.

If you enjoyed today’s episode, if you enjoy any of the episodes, do us a favor and hit the like button. Better yet, subscribe. That’s how we grow the pod. It’s how the content gets shared with other leaders.

You can leave us a review on your favorite platform, whether that’s Apple Podcasts or Spotify or YouTube.

Yeah, and I was looking at our 2025 year in review. We are listened to across 35 countries and over 400 cities. And somehow we’re big in Germany.

I don’t know. But I don’t speak German. I’d say thank you in German, but I don’t know how to say it now. Like half the people listening still are saying “Donkey Shein.” Sorry. “Gavelito Podruski,” yeah, “Yanya Style.”

Anyway, thank you all for listening.

And if you’re a CHRO wondering where to start your journey, I want to make sure you do not forget to check out Propulsion AI at the cleverly titled getpropulsion.ai. And that’s the company that’s transforming how smart companies turn HR insights into powerful outcomes.

And I would tell you, I have recommended Scott into a lot of my clients because I think it’s a super easy starting point for the AI journey. Because most CEOs are saying, what’s the AI strategy? I just say when they ask that question, you go check out Propulsion AI first. It makes everything else a lot easier.

And also a quick shout out to our sponsor, Dripify. If LinkedIn follow ups are eating your life, Dripify helps you automate the outreach in a way that still feels human. Check them out at try.dripify.com/talent-sherpa. That lets them know that you heard about them through us, and it’s helpful to everybody.

You know, the subjects that we talk about are important subjects, but they are hard subjects. And they’re hard subjects to do alone if you’re trying to make a pivot or a change in your career or in your business.

So if you’re an emerging CHRO or if you are ready to accelerate the impact that you make in the business, don’t do it alone.

Head over to mytalentsherpa.com. You’re gonna find resources, you’ll find coaching. Jackson’s created an academy, an online academy called CHRO Ascent Academy, and you’re gonna find the CHRO Chronicles. They are outstanding resources that will help you add value to the business.

I’d love to do it.

So until next time, keep raising the bar, keep building the discipline, and keep on climbing.