Have you ever bought new tech, spent months implementing it, and seen zero throughput improvement? You’re not alone. It's an age-old problem plaguing small businesses.

Whether it's switching property management software or adopting ChatGPT company-wide, the result is the same. Lots of disruption yet no meaningful change.

The culprit isn't the technology itself. It's how we deploy it. In the audiobook 'Beyond the goal', Dr. Eliyahu Goldratt identified four critical steps for technology rollout in the Theory of Constraints work, and most businesses overlook at least a couple of them.

Step one is easy: identify what the technology can do (it's on the vendor's website). Step two is to ask, “Does this technology diminish your actual constraint?”.

Step three is to identify old accommodations. These are the rules your team created to cope with historic limitations.

Step four is to identify new rules.

Technology becomes a burden if you keep operating under old policies. Companies spend millions on ERPs without updating the implicit rules designed around previous limitations, then wonder why productivity stays flat.

Jon extends this to the AI hype cycle, in which venture-backed firms are buying pool cleaning companies claiming AI will revolutionize operations. But until someone explains how AI solves managing $21/hour workers in wealthy homeowners' houses, it's just expensive posturing.

The constraint isn't following up on leads but managing low-cost local labor. Writing emails faster doesn't address that!

KEY TOPICS: (10:26) What to Do When A Lot of Work Nets Zero Results (16:01) Step One: Identify the Power (18:28) Step Two: How Does It Diminish the Constraint? (21:10) Missing the Step Between Goals and Rocks (28:17) Step Three: Identify Old Accommodations (33:45) Step Four: Identify New Rules (37:00) Why ChatGPT Adoption Isn't Driving Revenue Growth (46:45) You Must Be Intimately Familiar With Both Your Constraint and the Available Tools

Stay connected for more insights and strategies by following: Jon: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@MatznerJon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ on X and at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠lazyleverage.beehiiv.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Peter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@pslohmann⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ on X and at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠peterlohmann.com

The best operators in M&A make hundreds of millions because they "model deals elegantly," but billionaires "can barely do the math. They just only do deals where they can't lose."

At least that’s what Jon and Peter believe. It's Warren Buffett's philosophy in action; that price is your due diligence.

Metrics should be entered manually, not automated. The psychological weight of pulling numbers and inputting them weekly creates accountability that automated dashboards never achieve. It's the difference between ownership and passive observation.

They distinguish between dashboards (lagging indicators like revenue) and scorecards (controllable activities like reviews requested). This separation, learned from their EOS coach Chris Kaplan, prevents teams from chasing metrics they can't influence week-to-week.

Next we’re asking, “Should you judge people on outcomes or process?” Saban (echoing Bill Walsh) says focus on the controllables. That is, the score takes care of itself. But Jon admits he's "constantly ripped in half" between mandating process and demanding results. Peter suggests it depends on performance level: high performers get freedom, struggling performers get prescription.

They tackle paired metrics as protection against perverse incentives, using India's snake-bounty program as a cautionary tale. When the government paid for dead snakes, people started breeding them. Similarly, optimizing turn time without pairing it with customer satisfaction leads to cutting corners.

Finally, Jon and Peter riff on Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals", particularly when he says that, when pressure increases, people try to diffuse responsibility.

As a manager, your job is keeping accountability focused: "You are responsible for everything that does and doesn't happen to make this number improve."

Key Topics: (07:47) Why Automation Kills Accountability (10:20) Building Your First Scorecard: Start Imperfect and Iterate (12:41) Dashboard vs. Scorecard: Lagging Indicators vs. Controllable Activities (19:57) Control the Controllables, Not the Score (37:27) How Incentives Create Perverse Outcomes (41:14) Why DLER Must Be Balanced with Customer Satisfaction (45:38) Change the Metric, the Goal, or the Person (48:56) High Care, High Standards.

Stay connected for more insights and strategies by following: Jon: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@MatznerJon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ on X and at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠lazyleverage.beehiiv.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Peter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@pslohmann⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ on X and at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠peterlohmann.com

Peter admits he's stuck in patterns. He’s not quite burnt out, but feeling the weight of deeply grooved neural pathways at 40. Jon responds with what he calls his "wacko" idea: ketamine therapy as a tool for breaking mental ruts.

Speaking metaphorically, he says that Ketamine fills in the snow tracks your mind has carved, giving you a chance to create new paths. But only if you do the work afterward, such as therapy, reflection, habit change. Without that follow-through, you slide right back into the same grooves.

This leads to their "barbell strategy" for change: either make tiny, effortless tweaks or commit to massive action. The middle ground never sticks.

It's too much effort to start, but not enough commitment to force follow-through.

Jon and Peter also discuss hard-coded solutions in software. A go-to-market engineer explained why his work couldn't be productized: the last 20% of customization drives 75% of the value. Peter sees this in his own business with Airtable, while Jon wrestles with it at Sagan.

There’s a tension that LeadSimple’s journey illustrates, and it’s that customers want self-service, yet implementation requires expertise.

The result is an awkward middle ground: $7,000 packages, third-party consultants, and confusion about what the product even is.

Key Topics: (04:18) Tony Robbins and the Concept of "Massive Action" (06:26) Tiny Tweaks vs. Life-Changing Commitments (12:43) Ketamine Therapy (19:23) Familiar Media as Self-Care: Seinfeld, Star Trek, and Comfort Viewing (31:03) Hard-Coded Solutions: Why the Last 20% of Customization Matters Most (34:32) Distribution Strategy: Ben Horowitz's Framework for Implementation Complexity (42:09) The Cost of Friction Between Purchase and Pleasure (45:33) Scorecards and Metrics: Getting Back to What Actually Matters

Stay connected for more insights and strategies by following: Jon: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@MatznerJon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ on X and at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠lazyleverage.beehiiv.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Peter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@pslohmann⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ on X and at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠peterlohmann.com

The secretary problem is one of mathematics' most elegant solutions to a universal challenge: how do you know when to stop looking and commit?

Peter suggests interviewing 37% of your candidate pool without hiring anyone, then hire the next person who's better than everyone in that first group. It’s a pretty universal tactic, whether we’re talking house hunting, car buying, getting roofing quotes, or even picking a spouse!

There are two critical limitations to this, though. First, you need to know the total number of options, whether that's 100 candidates or 25 houses on the market. When that's unknown, you convert to time-based constraints.

The second limitation: the secretary problem only applies when you lack expertise. When Jon or a real estate agent has seen "5,000 of these," they can make absolute judgments, not just comparative ones.

Peter draws from a current predicament in which a Nicaraguan candidate has been asking for what seemed high compensation. Should he have paid based on her country's cost of living, or on the value she'd bring?

Jon pushes back on the entire concept of salary budgets. He argues everything should be discussed as trade-offs.

Peter admits his biggest mistake wasn't the salary negotiation. It was failing to sell the opportunity itself, assuming the candidate knew who he was and what Crane represented.

Key Topics: (04:00) Interview 37% Without Hiring, Then Take the Next Best Candidate (06:49) Time-Bound vs. Quantity-Bound: When You Don't Know the Pool Size (11:01) Why Employers Settle Too Quickly (And Peter's High Bar for Hiring) (13:12) You Have to Be Worthy of Great Talent (18:00) The Geographic Salary Dilemma: Nicaragua, Philippines, and Relative Pay (23:18) "What's Your Budget?" Is the Wrong Question (28:11) Life as Optimizing Around Trade-Offs (37:44) Peter's Biggest Hiring Mistake: Not Selling the Opportunity (40:04) Have Team Members Sell Candidates on the Reality of Working There

Stay connected for more insights and strategies by following: Jon: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@MatznerJon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ on X and at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠lazyleverage.beehiiv.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Peter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@pslohmann⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ on X and at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠peterlohmann.com

The Theory of Constraints is arguably the most powerful framework for small business operations. Yet it's deeply counterintuitive.

Jon opens by calling this "the single most interesting concept" he's wrestled with in years, one that sits at the heart of everything he does at Sagan. On a more practical level, Peter sees the concept as answering two critical questions every business owner has: "Why am I not achieving X?" and "What should I work on?"

Eliyahu Goldratt's manufacturing classic The Goal might just have the answer: every system has exactly one constraint at any given time. Like a chain's strength determined by its weakest link, your business throughput is determined by your bottleneck.

It’s important to avoid optimizing non-constraint resources. Peter's executive assistant Monica doesn't need to be busy 40 hours per week because if Peter's time is the constraint, Monica's availability is actually a feature, not a bug.

Firefighters sit idle 85% of the time so they can respond in five minutes. F1 pit crews have 20 people working seven seconds per race because speed, not cost, is the constraint.

Jon and Peter get into the five-step process. These are to identify the constraint, exploit it (no lunch breaks for the bottleneck!), subordinate everything else (redistribute weight from Herbie's backpack), elevate through investment only when necessary, and repeat as the constraint moves.

And remember, idle employees facing "idleness aversion" will invent busywork, whether it’s creating SOPs, trackers, and communication cadences that generate noise and clog the constraint's queue.

The solution isn't just accepting idle time but directing it toward infinity tasks that support the actual constraint.

Key Topics: (02:15) The Central Question for Business Owners (07:04) Three Powerful Analogies for Understanding Constraints (11:03) How to Identify Your Constraint: Five Diagnostic Questions (17:05) Why Utilization Rates Don't Matter for Non-Constraints (22:50) The Firefighter Principle: Availability as a Precondition for Speed (24:00) F1 Pit Crews and the Insidious MBA Optimization Trap (33:05) Organizing Everything Around Your Closer (42:00) The Drum-Buffer-Rope Method: Controlling Work Release Rates (49:10) How Idle Employees Invent Harmful Busywork (56:23) Sales vs. Operations: Which Side Wins Depends on Your Current Constraint (1:06:51) The Supervisor's Most Important Job

Stay connected for more insights and strategies by following: Jon: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@MatznerJon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ on X and at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠lazyleverage.beehiiv.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Peter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@pslohmann⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ on X and at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠peterlohmann.com

AI has fundamentally broken the traditional job application process. What’s an employer to do?

Jon and Peter dissect an academic paper titled "Making Talk Cheap: Generative AI and Labor Market Signaling," which examines how large language models have disrupted markets that historically relied on writing as a costly signal of quality. Specifically, job applications and college admissions.

Cover letters used to signal genuine candidate interest because they required significant time and effort to customize. But now, AI can generate personalized cover letters in seconds.

Peter immediately connects this to property management, noting how AI has made it trivially easy to generate fraudulent rental applications with fake pay stubs, identities, and emotional support animal letters promoted openly on TikTok.

The parallel extends to legal threats. What used to be a strong signal (a detailed legal letter citing lease terms) now costs nothing to produce but takes 10x more effort to refute.

Jon and Peter brainstorm for solutions, discussing costly signaling mechanisms like application fees, point-based systems (Online Jobs PH's approach), and role-specific vetting. Jon advocates for dynamic hiring processes tailored to each role. For example, video editors should submit completed work samples, not sit through interviews about their "passion for roofing."

Most provocatively, Peter proposes a new social contract: make applications harder (fees, videos, time investment), but in exchange, employers must provide genuine, specific feedback. The challenge is the legal liability and the emotional cost of having those conversations.

As Jon puts it, "I don't want a relationship with you" shouldn't open a seven-email negotiation!

The job marketplace needs complete reinvention, with differentiated approaches based on role scarcity and skill requirements.

KEY TOPICS: (02:22) How AI Enables Fraudulent Rental Applications at Scale (06:28) Why Employers are Drowning in Indistinguishable Applications (09:12) LinkedIn and Indeed as Failed Marketplaces (16:57) Role-Specific Hiring (31:16) Legal Liability Preventing Employer Feedback to Candidates (36:30) Harder Applications, Guaranteed Feedback (43:54) Costly Signals vs. Predictive Factors for Job Performance

Stay connected for more insights and strategies by following: Jon: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@MatznerJon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ on X and at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠lazyleverage.beehiiv.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Peter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@pslohmann⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ on X and at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠peterlohmann.com

Jon and Peter explore three frameworks that challenge conventional wisdom about running small businesses. They reveal why all-or-nothing thinking kills momentum, when authentic transparency becomes a liability, and how AI is forcing a reckoning with what real value looks like.

They unpack what they call the “floors-and-ceilings” concept, which reframes habit building and business processes. Let’s say you’re onboarding a new team member. Your ceiling might be comprehensive task maps and week-long training, but your floor is simply defining what success looks like in six months. Never skip the floor, always aspire to the ceiling.

This framework can do wonders for perfectionist entrepreneurs prone to all-or-nothing thinking. If you can't execute perfectly, you don't execute at all. That’s a recipe for paralysis and missed opportunities!

Next, Jon and Peter talk about how a little magic and mystery can do wonders for a leader’s authority. Drawing from Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, they make the case that, while radical transparency feels authentic, people actually crave some mystique. The fitness trainer who measures your ulna and checks your zodiac before recommending weight training creates more buy-in than one who simply says "lift weights and eat fewer carbs." Both deliver the same advice, but presentation matters.

Finally, they’re talking AI in workplace communication. Both Jon and Peter caught team members using AI to draft emails and reports, sometimes brilliantly (analyzing 15 candidate profiles against job requirements), sometimes disastrously (generic responses to client questions that should demonstrate personal attention).

Jon uses the analogy of recruiter-as-sommelier, where AI can pour the wine, but only humans can make the subjective recommendations that build confidence through the buying process.

The future belongs to people who know exactly when to automate data analysis and when authentic human judgment becomes non-negotiable!

KEY TOPICS: (02:03) The Anti-Perfectionist Framework (08:19) Magic, Mystery, and Authority in Business Relationships (20:12) When Team Members Use AI Wrong (27:00) Recruiters as Sommeliers (33:14) Radical Candor

Stay connected for more insights and strategies by following: Jon: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@MatznerJon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ on X and at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠lazyleverage.beehiiv.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Peter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@pslohmann⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ on X and at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠peterlohmann.com

According to Jacob Kline of Inkline Homes, his remote Filipino team members outperform his local American workers at a fraction of the cost, and they actually ask for more work on slow days.

After seven years flipping 300 double wide mobile homes in Florida, Jacob's building something radical at Incline Homes: luxury construction quality at bottom-10% pricing. Think IKEA's disruption of furniture, but for housing. His secret weapon isn't cheaper materials or cutting corners. It's ditching the traditional overhead-heavy construction model for a lean operation powered by global talent and AI.

Jacob shares how yesterday's leadership strengths become today's constraints. He learned this the hard way. His obsession with controlling every detail nearly tanked his business when he couldn't find quality project management. The breakthrough came when he realized his need for control was the actual bottleneck, not the lack of talent.

Jon's experience mirrors this evolution. He was drowning running a construction business with unreliable local talent (finding mini liquor bottles in desks of people making $30/hour). Global talent didn't just solve his staffing problem. It, in fact, reignited his passion for business. His Filipino team members think about improving the business in their free time, calling old leads for reviews without being asked.

As businesses scale, founders must evolve from doing everything to orchestrating systems. Jacob discovered his construction expertise was limiting growth because he couldn't delegate effectively. Once he let go and trusted global talent with core functions, his capacity exploded.

This isn't about replacing American workers, but strategic allocation. Jacob’s example demonstrates the value of paying local talent more for high-touch work while global talent handles the systematic, repeatable tasks. The result: better service, happier teams, and margins that allow truly affordable housing without sacrificing quality.

Key Topics: (01:14) Introduction to Incline Homes and the IKEA Approach to Construction (04:22) Global Talent Outperforming Local Workers (08:42) “You Need An Apprentice, Not An Assistant” (12:42) Self-Awareness of Your Level of Operational Maturity (21:35) When to Hire Managerial Talent (27:07) Scaling to Your Current Revenue (39:25) Sagan's Talent Pool and Hiring Innovation (41:00) Building Solutions for Your Own Problems

Stay connected for more insights and strategies by following: Jon: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@MatznerJon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ on X and at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠lazyleverage.beehiiv.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Peter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@pslohmann⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ on X and at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠peterlohmann.com