Discover creators and exclusive content on Sociala

Most founders I work with are trained to chase revenue. Fair. Revenue matters.

But I’ve seen plenty of companies grow sales and still stay cash-starved because they ignore the working capital cycle.

At a practical level, working capital is the money you need to run the business before cash comes back in. It gets tied up in three places:

• inventory
• receivables
• cash needed for day-to-day operations

The cycle is simple:

cash → inventory → production → receivables → cash

What matters is how long that loop takes.

If it takes 8 months to turn cash back into cash, your balance sheet is doing heavy lifting just to support normal operations. If you can shrink that to 3 months, the same capital can support far more revenue.

That’s the part many teams miss: working capital efficiency is a growth strategy.

Two identical businesses can borrow the same amount and get very different outcomes. If one business turns working capital 1.5 times per year and the other turns it 4 times, the second company can generate dramatically more turnover without needing more capital.

That is not a vanity metric. That is financial leverage.

I liked the framing that “less is bad, more is worse” when it comes to inventory. I use a similar lens with portfolio companies. Too little inventory creates stockouts and lost sales. Too much inventory quietly absorbs cash, hides forecasting problems, and usually creates write-down risk later.

Same with receivables. Extending generous payment terms can make sales easier in the short run, but somebody is financing that customer. If it’s not a bank, it’s you.

And that’s where I think founders need to zoom out: this is not a finance-department problem.

Working capital lives in operations.

Purchasing affects raw material days.
Production affects cycle time.
Sales affects finished goods strategy and customer credit terms.
Collections affects how quickly receivables convert to cash.

So when I’m acting as fractional CFO, I don’t just ask for the P&L. I want to see:

• inventory days by category
• receivable days by customer cohort
• payable days
• production lead times
• forecast accuracy

Because if cash conversion is getting slower, the business is becoming less efficient even if revenue looks healthy.

A founder-friendly way to think about it:

Every extra day in inventory or A/R is cash you can’t use somewhere else.

You can’t use it for hiring.
You can’t use it for marketing.
You can’t use it to reduce debt.
You can’t use it to build resilience.

A lot of “we need more capital” problems are actually “our cash-to-cash cycle is too long” problems.

So if I were reviewing this with a leadership team, I’d ask a few blunt questions:

• Why do we hold this much inventory?
• Which SKUs actually need safety stock, and which ones are just habit?
• Where is production time longer than it should be?
• Which customers are effectively using us as a bank?
• Are we winning business because of product strength, or because we keep extending credit?

That last one matters. If your sales model only works when customers pay late, your margin may be weaker than it looks.

The biggest takeaway for me is simple: finance management is everybody’s job.

Not in a motivational-poster way. In a literal economic way.

The purchasing team influences cash.
The production team influences cash.
The sales team influences cash.
The finance team measures it, but the business controls it.

If you want healthier growth, don’t just ask, “How do we sell more?”

Also ask, “How do we get cash back faster?”

That question usually leads to better decisions. And better decisions usually show up in both profitability and resilience.

I’ve led enough teams to know this is true:

A company usually doesn’t break because the strategy deck was weak.
It breaks because the organization is unhealthy.

That’s the core idea here, and I agree with it.

Most leaders are trained to chase the “smart” side of business: strategy, finance, technology, product, market timing. All important. But in the real world, I’ve watched strong businesses underperform for a simpler reason: people weren’t aligned, trust was low, decisions were slow, and meetings produced heat instead of clarity.

That’s not a strategy problem. That’s an organizational health problem.

Lencioni makes a distinction I wish more operators would take seriously: being smart is good, but being healthy is the real advantage.

And no, “healthy” doesn’t mean soft.

It means the leadership team is genuinely aligned.
It means people can challenge each other without politics.
It means the company is clear on what matters.
It means that clarity gets repeated until everyone is tired of hearing it.
It means systems reinforce the message instead of contradicting it.

In my experience, unhealthy organizations show the same symptoms over and over:

• talented people working hard but pulling in different directions
• long meetings with no real decisions
• quiet frustration in the room
• wasted talent
• avoidable politics
• good people eventually leaving

That last one matters. Strong operators do not stay long in confused environments.

What I like most in Lencioni’s framework is that it’s practical. He doesn’t leave this at the level of culture talk. He pushes leaders toward four disciplines:

• build a cohesive leadership team
• create clarity
• overcommunicate clarity
• reinforce clarity through systems

That sequence matters.

A lot of companies try to jump straight to execution. Drucker said, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” I’d add this: confused leadership eats execution for lunch.

If the top team isn’t aligned, the rest of the company pays the tax.

The part many leaders skip is the hard work of answering the basic questions clearly:

• Why do we exist?
• How do we behave?
• What do we actually do?
• How will we succeed?
• What is most important right now?
• Who must do what?

Simple questions. Brutally hard answers.

And until a leadership team can answer them in plain language and with one voice, the company will drift. You can feel that drift in the middle layer first. Managers start translating strategy differently. Priorities multiply. Accountability gets fuzzy. Meetings expand. Energy drops.

That’s when the business starts looking busy instead of effective.

I also agree with the point on overcommunication. Most executives think they’ve communicated because they said something once in an all-hands or dropped it into a slide. That’s not communication. That’s exposure.

If you want clarity to stick, you repeat it. Then repeat it again. Then build it into hiring, onboarding, performance reviews, promotions, and recognition.

Otherwise, you’re not leading a system. You’re broadcasting slogans.

This is where a lot of leadership teams fail the consistency test. They say one thing and reward another. They talk about collaboration and promote silos. They talk about values and tolerate behavior that breaks trust. People notice. Fast.

And once that happens, cynicism replaces commitment.

Lencioni is right that organizational health compounds. So does dysfunction.

A healthy organization gets faster over time. Decision-making improves. Conflict becomes useful instead of personal. Good people stay longer. Execution gets cleaner. The business becomes more resilient because the team isn’t burning energy on internal friction.

That’s the real advantage.

Not just being smart enough to make a plan, but healthy enough to execute one.

If you’re leading a company right now, this is the question I’d ask:

Are we spending all our energy trying to look smart, or are we doing the harder work of becoming healthy?

Operators know the answer shows up in the numbers eventually.

I was glad to see this topic addressed because it creates real confusion for job seekers.

When someone has a resume filled with contract, freelance, temporary, or consulting assignments, the question is not simply, “What happened?” The question is, how do I present it so a recruiter reads it correctly? That distinction matters.

What stood out to me most is this: HR appears to prefer grouping contract-style work on the resume for readability, while often preferring each assignment entered separately in the applicant tracking system.

That makes perfect sense to me.

A resume is a marketing document. It is not a raw data dump. Its job is to create a coherent story, reduce friction, and keep the reader from making the wrong assumption. If I group related consulting or contract work under one umbrella, I can immediately signal: this was a deliberate work model, not random instability.

That matters because perception matters.

If a hiring manager sees five short assignments listed as though they were five unrelated permanent jobs, many will read that as job hopping before they read it as project-based work. That is a resume failure, not a candidate failure.

For that reason, I generally like an approach such as:

Independent Consultant
2021–Present

Then underneath, I would show selected client engagements or projects in a way that makes the work easy to scan and easy to understand.

That said, I would not apply that rule blindly.

If one contract assignment lasted multiple years, had a recognizable employer, or was substantial enough to stand on its own, I would often separate it out. A three-year contract is not the same as a three-month gig. Resume strategy should reflect scale, not just chronology.

The other important point is the ATS issue.

This is where candidates get tripped up. The system often wants the employment record entered one company at a time. So yes, I can absolutely believe a candidate may need one version optimized for human readability and another approach that accommodates application system inputs.

That is not dishonest. That is formatting for context.

I have said this for years: resumes are sales copy. Good sales copy is clear, intentional, and built for the audience in front of it. If the audience is a recruiter, I want clean grouping and strong framing. If the audience is an ATS form, I want precise records and searchable employer entries.

The bigger lesson is simple: do not let short-term work accidentally brand you as unstable when the truth is that you were consistently employed through project-based work.

That is a messaging problem, and messaging can be fixed.

What I would advise is this:
Use your resume to show continuity, use your wording to show purpose, and use your bullet points to show outcomes.

Not tasks. Not vague filler. Outcomes.

If your contract work solved problems, delivered revenue, improved operations, supported clients, or completed critical projects, then write it that way. The format gets you past the first objection. The bullet writing closes the sale.

I think too many candidates focus on where to place freelance and contract work, when the more important question is whether the presentation makes the reader think, This person was in demand.

That is the reaction you want.

I think too many people talk about Roth conversions as if they’re automatically a smart move. They’re not.

A Roth conversion is simply moving money from a tax-deferred account, like a traditional IRA, into a Roth account and paying tax on that amount now. The real question is whether prepaying that tax helps your long-term plan.

In my view, there are 3 big effects to think about.

First, you’re paying tax now instead of later. That can be a good trade, or a bad one. It comes down to your current marginal tax rate versus the tax rate that would apply if those dollars stayed tax-deferred. And that analysis is rarely as simple as just looking at your tax bracket.

For retirees, the real marginal rate can be pushed around by things like ACA premium credits, Social Security taxation, and Medicare IRMAA. For married couples, I also think it’s important to remember that the surviving spouse often ends up in a worse tax situation later. And if a big chunk of IRA money is likely going to charity, that argues against converting, because paying tax now to avoid a future 0% rate is not much of a strategy.

Second, a conversion can let you use taxable-account dollars to effectively buy more Roth space. That matters more than many people realize.

If you pay the conversion tax from a taxable account instead of withholding it from the IRA, you get more money into the Roth. In plain English, you’re moving dollars from a less tax-efficient bucket into a more tax-efficient one. Over a long stretch of retirement, that tax-free compounding can be meaningful.

This is one of the biggest points people miss. The usual conversation gets stuck on “Will my future tax bracket be higher or lower?” That matters, of course. But I’m also looking at whether we can improve the location of assets and reduce ongoing tax drag over time.

Third, conversions reduce future RMDs. That can help, especially for households that expect to reinvest part of those RMDs rather than spend them.

Smaller RMDs don’t just mean less forced income. They can also mean fewer dollars pushed out into taxable accounts where interest, dividends, and realized gains create a steady drag. If the money can stay inside a Roth instead, that’s often cleaner and more efficient.

That said, I appreciated the reminder that Roth conversions usually do not solve the biggest retirement risks.

They don’t fix bad market returns early in retirement. They don’t fix overspending. They don’t fix large healthcare shocks or other unexpected expenses. In other words, they usually don’t dramatically improve the odds that you won’t run out of money.

That’s an important distinction.

A smart conversion strategy may do a better job of improving the after-tax value of what’s left, especially for heirs, than improving the retiree’s core financial security. I think that’s a more honest way to frame it.

So when do I think conversions fit best?

Usually in years when income is temporarily lower, before RMDs start, and when there’s a clear tax window worth using. Early retirement often creates those windows. Once Social Security and RMDs are fully online, flexibility usually shrinks.

I also think Roth conversions need to be viewed as part of a broader withdrawal plan, not as a standalone tactic. The order you spend from matters. The mix of taxable, tax-deferred, and Roth assets matters. Your health, your charitable intent, your heirs, and your time horizon all matter.

That’s why I’m skeptical when I hear blanket advice on conversions.

Sometimes they’re absolutely worth doing.

Sometimes they’re a wash.

And sometimes they’re just a way to write a bigger check to the IRS sooner than necessary.

As always, the right answer is not “Roth conversions are good” or “Roth conversions are bad.” The right answer is: what problem are we trying to solve, and at what tax cost?