WMW International

03/16/2026

𝗢𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗹 𝗶𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗲.

It’s about 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱.

Many organizations unintentionally drift into extremes.

Some put nearly all of their resources into growth initiatives, constantly chasing the next opportunity while the core business becomes strained.

Others focus almost entirely on maintaining existing revenue streams, which creates stability in the short term but leaves the organization vulnerable to stagnation.

Over time, both patterns create stress inside the business.

One lens I often use when thinking about financial allocation is a simple ratio:

𝟳𝟬 / 𝟮𝟬 / 𝟭𝟬

Not as a rigid formula, but as a leadership architecture for financial balance.

𝟳𝟬% — 𝗖𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆
The products, services, and client relationships that reliably sustain the organization and fund operations.

𝟮𝟬% — 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗚𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘁𝗵
Investments in expanding the business through new markets, partnerships, improvements, or scaling initiatives.

𝟭𝟬% — 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻
Testing new ideas, pilots, and opportunities without putting the stability of the organization at risk.

When these layers are intentionally balanced, organizations tend to experience both 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘂𝗺.

But when the allocations drift too far in one direction, leaders often start feeling the pressure long before it shows up clearly in the numbers.

Which raises an interesting leadership question:

𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻’𝘀 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝘄?

03/15/2026

03/13/2026

One of the things leaders often say after we talk about retention is:

"𝘞𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘮 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨."

Employee turnover rarely starts with a resignation letter.

It usually begins much earlier.

A manager quietly stretched too thin.
A team absorbing constant onboarding and training.
Too many employees sitting in the “figuring it out” category at the same time.

Over time, the culture begins to feel heavier.

Not because people don’t care.

But because the 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗹𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻 𝗼𝘂𝘁.

Healthy organizations tend to maintain a rhythm where most employees feel confident and steady in their roles, while a smaller percentage are developing or new to the team.

When that balance shifts too far, leaders usually feel it long before it shows up clearly in the metrics.

Which is why retention isn’t only an HR issue.

It’s a 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲.

Sometimes the most valuable leadership move isn’t hiring faster or pushing harder for results.

It’s pausing long enough to ask:

𝗜𝘀 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝘄?

One way to assess that is by identifying 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗱.

In many cases, we can see where pressure is building and where stability has shifted in just 𝗮 𝗼𝗻𝗲-𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.

And even that quick snapshot can reveal a lot about what’s happening inside an organization.

If that question sparked some curiosity this week, I’m always open to thoughtful conversations with leaders who want to take a closer look at their team stability and leadership structure.

03/11/2026

Quick midweek leadership reflection.

Most executives track revenue, pipeline, and hiring closely.

But very few regularly pause to look at 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆.

Sometimes leaders notice instability and push past it.

The numbers look strong.
The pipeline is healthy.
The next hire feels urgent.

So attention stays on growth instead of 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺 𝗰𝗼𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲.

But culture stability rarely breaks loudly.

It shifts quietly through the composition of the team.

Here’s a simple 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗲:

Without opening a spreadsheet, think about your organization right now and ask yourself:

How many employees would you roughly place in each category?

confident and steady in their role

still developing or currently struggling

brand new to the organization or recently exited

If you lead a larger team and don’t know every individual well, try this instead:

Look at your leadership layers.

Are your managers spending most of their time:

leading stable teams

coaching multiple struggling employees

constantly onboarding and replacing people

Those patterns usually reveal a lot about the current stability of the culture.

Because when too many employees sit in the uncertainty zone, managers start carrying more pressure, morale becomes inconsistent, and retention challenges tend to follow.

Sometimes the most strategic leadership move isn’t another hire.

It’s pausing long enough to evaluate the stability of the team you already have so your next hire is more aligned, strategic, and coherent with your current team.

03/10/2026

𝗢𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗻 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗹 𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗶𝘁.

I was in a conversation recently with a leadership team talking about retention.

On the surface, everything looked normal.

Revenue was growing.
Hiring was steady.
Nothing seemed obviously broken.

But as we talked through their team composition using the 𝟳𝟬 / 𝟮𝟬 / 𝟭𝟬 𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼, something became clear.

Instead of roughly:

𝟳𝟬% stable, confident long-term employees
𝟮𝟬% developing or needing improvement
𝟭𝟬% natural churn (new hires and exits)

Their team looked closer to 𝟱𝟱 / 𝟯𝟱 / 𝟭𝟬.

Which meant over a third of the organization was sitting in that “needs improvement” or uncertain zone.

And that’s when leaders usually start feeling the pressure.

Managers become stretched.
Morale gets inconsistent.
And retention quietly begins to slide.

Another signal leaders often overlook is the churn layer.

When 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗵𝗶𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝟭𝟬% 𝘇𝗼𝗻𝗲, a few things happen quickly:

Clients begin noticing the turnover.
Team morale starts dipping.
And the financial cost of replacing employees escalates fast.

The interesting thing about culture stability is that leaders usually 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗳𝘁 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀.

I explain the idea a little more in the video.

03/09/2026

𝗠𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘀𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗮 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴.

It sounds good.

But structurally, that’s not how healthy organizations operate.

When I look at employee retention through the lens of culture stability, I use a simple ratio:

𝟳𝟬 / 𝟮𝟬 / 𝟭𝟬

Not as a performance ranking.
As a 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲.

In a healthy organization you’ll typically see:

𝟳𝟬%
Happy, productive, long-term employees.
They carry culture memory, operational rhythm, and relational trust.

𝟮𝟬%
Employees still developing or currently under “needs improvement.”
They’re stretching into new roles, learning systems, or working through performance gaps.

𝟭𝟬%
New hires entering the culture or employees exiting the organization.

This movement is natural.
It’s what keeps organizations stable and adaptive at the same time.

The problem isn’t turnover.

The problem is when the ratios drift.

Because turnover has a real cost.

In 2026, replacing a single employee costs organizations an average of $45,236, up significantly from $36,723 just a year ago.

Across the U.S. economy, voluntary turnover now costs businesses roughly $1 trillion annually.

And the impact rises sharply with seniority:

Entry-level roles: 30–50% of salary

Technical professionals: 75–150% of salary

Managers: around 200% of salary

Executives: over 200% of salary

When the 70% stability layer shrinks, leaders often feel it long before HR reports show it.

Morale dips.
Decision velocity slows.
Culture becomes reactive instead of steady.

Employee retention isn’t just about keeping people.

It’s about maintaining culture stability ratios.

So here’s a leadership question worth asking this week:

If you mapped your team today, where would your organization roughly sit in the 70 / 20 / 10 ratio?

03/06/2026

Here’s what I confirmed last week.

When leaders see operational strain mapped clearly, they don’t argue.

They recalibrate.

Because once concentration becomes visible, strategy becomes possible.

If this week’s posts have felt uncomfortably accurate, it may not be burnout.

It may be misallocation.

The Executive Leadership Audit is a strategic diagnostic.

It identifies:

Operational distribution gaps

Energetic leadership pressure

Builder style alignment

90-day reallocation moves

If you want to see where your concentration is hiding, message me “𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗚𝗜𝗖.”

I’ll send you the overview.

03/05/2026

Most growth models are linear.

Climb higher.
Move faster.
Outperform.

Joanne Brooks built a $30 million enterprise doing something different.

She partnered with her largest competitors.

She circled with them.
Because circles distribute weight.

Straight lines concentrate it.
Compression isolates leaders.

Circles stabilize them.

At Sass, Cash & Class 2026, Joanne is hosting a live virtual mastermind session you can attend from anywhere in the world.

If your growth has felt heavy rather than expansive, this conversation will feel strategic.

Because sustainable scale isn’t about pressure.
It’s about distribution.

shetalksdenver.leadandempowerher.com

03/04/2026

There’s a leadership mistake that gets rewarded early.

Carrying more.

Holding more.

Stabilizing everything yourself.

It feels responsible.

It looks competent.

But structurally, it creates compression.

And compression eventually distorts decision velocity, partnership quality, and growth ceiling.

Strategy isn’t about adding more structure.

It’s about redistributing load.

Where in your business are you carrying weight that should already be distributed?

03/03/2026

Most leaders feel strain.

Very few can see it.

During last week’s live audit demo, the shift didn’t happen when I explained builder styles.

It happened when allocation became visible.

Founder operational load: elevated.

Energetic leadership: 100%.

That’s when the tone changed.

Not emotional.

Structural.

Because once concentration is quantified, denial dissolves.

This is what strategic visibility does.

It separates:

“I feel stretched”

from

“I am structurally misallocated.”

The Executive Leadership Audit is designed to expose exactly that.

Not personality.

Not performance.

Distribution.

03/02/2026

High performers rarely burn out because they lack capacity.

They burn out because they over-concentrate capacity.

In a recent Executive Leadership Audit, a six-figure founder with a four-person team discovered something uncomfortable:

He wasn’t overwhelmed.

He was structurally over-concentrated.

Operational weight sat too heavily in the founder lane.

Energetic leadership carried 100%.

That’s not ambition.

That’s compression.

Compression creates ceilings long before it creates collapse.

𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻:

Is your pressure coming from volume —

or from concentration?