Leadership Launchpad · 2026-06-16 · 50 min
Key moments - from our scoring
Substance score
51 / 100
Five dimensions, 20 points each
Roy Samson, a technical training specialist from the aerospace industry, breaks down the fundamental differences between traditional education and technical training - where the goal shifts from understanding to doing, and outcomes are measured by competency, not test scores. Speaking at the Association for Talent Development International Conference, Samson explains his systematic approach: start by identifying required skills, document who trained people and when, establish clear quality criteria for competency assessment, and record training methods. He emphasizes the critical importance of an 'operating system for quality' in high-stakes environments like aerospace, where 100% mastery is non-negotiable because, as SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell noted, it takes a million things to go right to launch a rocket but only one failure to cause catastrophe. Samson illustrates this with a real example of refusing to certify a technician who technically passed but lacked the workmanship quality needed for crewed missions - ultimately convincing them to practice more before retesting. His approach bridges three audiences: talent development professionals who understand learning theory, supervisors with hands-on experience, and engineering managers accustomed to formal education. The conversation reveals a critical tension in manufacturing: production leaders are often responsible simultaneously for training, certification, and output - a conflict of interest that undermines quality standards.
Create a list of required skills for the job, then record who trained each person and when they received training. This establishes a foundation for tracking competency and scheduling necessary refresher training, since technical skills degrade over time without use.
Traditional education focuses on understanding and knowledge assessment through quizzes; technical training focuses on doing - whether someone can actually perform the task. Technical training is needs-based and task-specific, designed around what the business requires now, not theoretical curriculum.
In aerospace, high stakes mean that one defect can cause catastrophic failure. Roy uses the analogy of an F-14 fighter jet with 95% of its wing intact - that wouldn't be acceptable. He advocates embedding a quality 'operating system' into technicians so they won't compromise on standards, regardless of production pressure.
It's a non-negotiable commitment to quality standards built into both training evaluation and production leadership. Rather than allowing point-based passing grades, Roy docks points for any quality issues - even procedural ones like not wearing proper PPE - so technicians internalize that quality is never negotiable, just like safety in aerospace.
Roy recommends teaching fundamentals and the 'why' behind procedures for critical systems, so technicians can apply that knowledge to novel problems. He designs training assuming worst-case scenarios - like needing to troubleshoot with limited tools - so technicians have transferable knowledge rather than rote procedures.
Our reviewer’s read on each dimension, with quotes from the episode.
The episode contains a handful of genuinely useful frameworks - building a training program from skills list to training records to quality criteria to methods, the OS of quality concept, and OJT as a leadership on-ramp - but these are surrounded by considerable padding, repeated affirmations ('yeah, yeah'), and advice like 'make it fun' and 'be curious' that adds little for a working operator. The ratio of signal to noise is mediocre.
the very first thing I would do is create a list of what skills are needed to do this job. And then two record who trained you to do it and when did they train you to do it?
I don't treat it like an organization, I try to treat it like an organism. And what does every successful organism need to have one is the ability to duplicate itself.
The 'design training for Mars, not launch' framing is a genuinely memorable inversion and the organism-vs-organization metaphor is fresh, but the bulk of the episode recycles standard L&D thinking (mastery vs. passing scores, make it fun, be curious, find SMEs) dressed in aerospace language rather than offering truly counterintuitive arguments.
I try to build a training program for technicians trying to send a rocket back.
it takes a million things to go right to get a rocket off the pad. It only takes one thing to go wrong to have a really catastrophic failure.
Roy Samson is a genuine aerospace technical training practitioner with hands-on SpaceX-adjacent experience training technicians to NASA workmanship standards - real operational credibility. However, he is not a senior decision-maker or widely recognized expert, and the host is also a training practitioner rather than a senior operator, limiting the ceiling of insight.
I had zero training experience when I got hired, uh, as a technical trainer. And um, the quote that I would give my manager back then was, we are trying to challenge NASA. Why would I hire somebody who's been doing that for 20 years?
I wasn't comfortable allowing somebody with the workmanship quality that I was seeing to work on a rocket where astronauts could possibly go.
A few concrete anchors exist - NASA's 80% workmanship threshold, the specific student anecdote, AS9100 and FAA compliance references, and the thermodynamics professor F14 wing story - but hard outcome data, defect-rate metrics, program timelines, or cost figures are entirely absent, and most claims remain at the level of principle rather than proof.
What NASA wants, NASA wants 80% on workmanship. Which means, like, if I take away a certain number of points, you will pass this course, you will get certified.
an 80% could be five defects. And are you willing to tolerate five defects?
The host does land a few genuine follow-up prompts ('say more on that, like an operating system for quality') and frames the three-audience structure clearly at the top, but he rarely challenges claims, frequently answers his own questions with long monologues, and the live audience Q&A section is muddled with poor audio and paraphrasing that loses precision.
Um, say, you got to say more on that. Like an operating system for quality.
the wolf watching the hen house. Yeah. It's like this, it's this crazy conflict of interest.
Computed from the transcript - who did the talking, and the words that came up most.
Most technical training programs fail before the first technician ever sets foot in the room. Not because the content is wrong. Because the entire design is wrong. Traditional training asks: did they understand it? Technical training asks something harder: can they actually do it? And in aerospace, where it takes a million things to go right and one thing to go wrong. In this first ever live episode of the Leadership Launchpad, Matt sits down with Roy Samson, a technical training veteran from the aerospace industry. Together they break down what it actually takes to build a training program for a technical team.
Transcribed and scored by The B2B Podcast Index.
Roy Sampson: If I came to a production environment or a manufacturing environment and there was nothing, the very first thing I would do is create a list of what skills are needed to do this job. And then two record who trained you to do it and when did they train you to do it?
Matt Gjertsen: Hello and welcome to the Leadership Launchpad. Uh, this is a show where we try to bring key insights, real tactics that leaders can use in hard tech, which is basically energy, defense and those kinds of related sectors. My name is Matt Jertson, I'm the host of the show. I'm the founder of a company called Built, where our mission is to train the next generation of hard tech leaders how to build teams capable of solving the world's hardest problems. I'm really excited for today because this is our very first live podcast, if you're listening. We are live from the association for Talent Development International Conference in LA. We have 7,000, 8,000 attendees here, all talent development professionals who are here to kind of raise their game so that they can help raise the game of all of their organizations, which is, which is really, really exciting. I couldn't be happier for the conversation we're about to have because I'm joined with my good friend, our guest, Roy Sampson. How are you doing, Roy?
Roy Sampson: I'm m doing great, Matt. How are you?
Matt Gjertsen: I'm doing fantastic. So Roy and I go back, uh, a decade now.
Roy Sampson: Yes, I think we've known, you've known
Matt Gjertsen: each other for a decade and we've worked together within the aerospace industry do both of us doing training, but from very different points of view. So I kind of went down the track of more of the hr, the leadership development world. Whereas Roy, for his career has been much more on the, on the technical training, training, the people who are actually building the hardware that's uh, taking things into space, taking things into the air. Uh, I'd love to start by going ahead. You have a very, you have a varied interest, give a little bit more of an introduction to you of kind of some of the other things that you have going on in your life.
Roy Sampson: All right, so I have a lot of hobbies. I just can't sit still. So, um, a lot of the things that I'm going to, I'm going to try to harness it to the things that have affected my perspective on training. One of them is parenthood, parenting. So I actually take a lot of training concepts, L and D concepts that I've taken tested on my kids, and then bring it back into creating a training program. So that's one, um, another One is engineering and system design. So I like to geek out on what if this person was a valve? How do I actually create training for a smart valve versus a solenoid that just requires a signal? Um, so engineering. Another one is swing dancing. So partner dancing has a lot of analogies to um, developing because in the fundamentals of it, you're just training a skill, you're just getting someone to move. Um, another one is jiu jitsu. So that is for the more um, higher level skill where you're actually trying to get somebody to loosen up. Gut memory versus you can't think when someone's trying to choke you out. So just breathe.
Matt Gjertsen: Muscle memory.
Roy Sampson: Yes. Those are the things that uh, I'm still doing now.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah, that's fantastic. So I'm really excited in this conversation today. I'm kind of hoping that we can kind of bring together what I think are like the three key groups when it comes to technical training. We have on the one hand the people who are at this conference, the talent development professionals like yourselves, who we are deeply rooted in the ideas of learning what learning is, the theory behind it. So we bring that into, into what we're designing. But we maybe don't have as much experience with the actual doing out on the work, like out on the shop floor. We don't necessarily know what's going on there as much. So that's the one group. The second group is more of like the supervisors who are the ones who are leading the technicians out there. They probably have a ton of, they obviously have a ton of experience with the hands on. They have experience with training, but more than likely it's informally experience with it. They're used to on the job training, but maybe they haven't had a lot of exposure to like formalized education or formalized training plans. And then you have the engineering managers who, they obviously have a lot of experience in formal education but maybe have less experience in like, well, how do I transition to that tech, uh, to a technical workforce and a technical world. So those are kind of the three groups that I'm hoping to bring together today. And so I want to start off with just kind of an understanding from you of when we say technical training, what does that mean? How is it different from, you know, traditional education or, or the kinds of things that I maybe would do from an HR point of view.
Roy Sampson: Okay. So typically traditional training is something that you would see in a university where someone is up there lecturing and then there's a quiz at the end of it where uh, I'm trying to assess your understanding of it. So technical training is more about doing, like, can you do the thing? And that's one of the things that we really assess for. Um, four main differences I think are. One is the purpose. So the purpose is understanding for traditional training, doing is for technical training. Another thing is design, like designing. Those two different types of training are very different. Yeah. Um, the delivery of the training is very different because, especially in aerospace, because you have to be really agile. Um, and then the outcomes, like what are you measuring when the training is done is very different as well. So, um, another thing with the outcome is what do I get out of this training? So let's break it down. Traditional training, um, the purpose is trying to develop critical thinking. Do you understand this? And let me assess your knowledge. Let me throw a bunch of questions at you. Now you pass the quiz.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: Um, technical training is typically, if you think about a plumber, they will learn how to do plumbing and then they can get a job. So those are the things that a technical trainer would be doing. Except in aerospace it would be very specialized to things like soldering, putting together aircraft, ah, or rocket. Um, it's going to be very task, uh, specific, um, what else? So the design of it would be very different as well. What kind of methods of training am I going to use to deploy? So if I'm writing a curriculum for a university, I would usually come up with, um, this is what I want to teach. And then I will create a checklist of how I'm going to do it. Yeah, I'll present the research thesis, all that stuff. And then I will create a quiz to see if you remember everything in technical training. The way I would design that is I would. If I came to, uh, a production environment or a manufacturing environment and there was nothing, the very first thing I would do is create a list of what skills are needed to do this job. Because what do you need to know how to do?
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: And then two, record who trained you to do it and when did they train you to do it? Because, um, we all know that if we don't ride a bike for so long, sometimes we might have to get a refresher or any kind of technical skill like that. You just need to refresh yourself.
Matt Gjertsen: You're gonna lose it eventually.
Roy Sampson: You're gonna lose it eventually. So knowing when you got trained is really important. So that's the first thing I would do. The next thing I would do after we created those training records is list how I know that you were competent like what are the quality requirements that I had to, I used to assess whether you are good or whether you're, you're not good at uh, your job. After that, quality requirements, then I would record the methods of training.
Matt Gjertsen: Okay.
Roy Sampson: So that is the last thing that I would do. So it went from just a checklist of the things that I want to teach you versus the thing, a list of what I want you to learn, how you learned it and did you learn it.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah, yeah. And it's, there's a couple key things that I think to highlight in that that are really important, especially in certain fields like aerospace. For anybody who's not in those spaces, you know, the, the quality control is just so rigorous. That's where those training records become. I, um, mean we're used to anybody that's ever done been in hr, you know, training records are important and you gotta have them. But no kidding, you know what'll happen is if there's an accident or an incident, part of the investigation is to like really figure out root, ca. Cause of no where did this training happen? What. And uh, correct me if I'm wrong, I think, you know, NASA standards and different things will say for certain techniques that you're training, you might actually have to preserve the training article. The thing that they were evaluated on for a certain number of years. Yes, yes. Um, I see that a lot in welding and things like that. One thing that I wanted to dive to go a little bit deeper on there is. I totally agree with you. There's this separation between more of like the knowledge base versus the doing base. How do you think of when you have a clear, this is what I want the technician to do. Do you ever think about how much of the theory or the knowledge or the kinds of things that you like, how much of that needs to go into it or is it just like can they do it or not?
Roy Sampson: Great question. Okay, amazing question. I love this question. One of the reasons is it depends on the technician and what you need them to be able to do.
Matt Gjertsen: Sure.
Roy Sampson: Um, one of the other differences between traditional, uh, curriculum and technical training is that technical training is very needs based. What does the business need now? So sometimes a technician may not need to know what they're doing. They just need to be able to crank widgets.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: So, uh, if I look at a pcb, a line or uh, an assembly line where I'm putting together um, printed circuit boards, however a machine is doing it before I do it, then I don't need to know what the machine is doing. And how it's doing it. I just need to be able to take that, the product that comes out of the machine, look at it and see if it's good and then move it to the next machine. Yeah. Um, so in that case I just need to.
Matt Gjertsen: Maybe there is no theory.
Roy Sampson: There is no theory behind it. It's just this is how you do it.
Speaker C: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: Um, I feel like a lot of manufacturing, to make it easier on technical training, is going into a lot more modular or assembly line. So, so that I only need to show you how to do one thing and then you don't need to know the theory. And um, if someone who needs to know the theory needs to resolve an issue or troubleshoot, we'll just call an engineer or specialist to deal with that.
Matt Gjertsen: Okay. So it depends on it depends what they're, what you're asking of them.
Roy Sampson: Yes.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah, yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Roy Sampson: And can I give you the opposite example? Uh, one of the things that I started doing, um, is actually specifically for high critical systems. M is teaching the concepts behind it and the fundamentals, the knowledge, because it will transfer to future skills.
Matt Gjertsen: Sure.
Roy Sampson: So I don't want to go too far because I know we have question lists and stuff. But, um, one of the things that I like to do, um, working in aerospace is, is not think about trying to create a training program for technicians trying to launch a rocket to Mars. I try to build a training program for technicians trying to send a rocket back.
Speaker C: Huh.
Matt Gjertsen: Huh.
Roy Sampson: So what is if we think our environment is critical now, how critical is it gonna be there?
Matt Gjertsen: Ah, okay.
Speaker C: Yeah.
Matt Gjertsen: Okay.
Roy Sampson: So if I'm building a program, I want it to be able to survive the rigor of. There are only 100 people here. Yeah. And I need to train this technician.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: Um, so I want to give them the why things are happening so that if they come across a scenario on Mars because they ran out of tools, something blew up, um, I can figure out how to build off the fundamental knowledge that I have to be able to solve that problem.
Matt Gjertsen: Oh, so you're kind of designing for that edge case almost. Yes. That's where you're thinking about. And I have to imagine, you know, to jump down to a question that we're going to get to later. You know, one of the questions that I had down for us to talk about was this idea of designing when thing designing, training when things are always changing. You know, the world is changing faster than ever. I always say, you know, so my background is I was in the Air Force. We the Air Force has amazing training, but that's because I was flying a plane that was 30 years old.
Speaker C: Right.
Matt Gjertsen: Like, it's been around for a long time. We know what's going on. There's, you know, whether you're the pilot or you're the mechanics, like, things haven't changed. And so it's, we can pour tons of energy into these really pristine training programs. Whereas especially in aerospace, cutting edge aerospace today, things are always changing. And I, so we. So the question I was going to ask is how do you design training when things are always changing? I imagine that this idea of giving a little bit more of the theory, a little bit more of the background so that the individual technicians are more flexible has a piece of that.
Roy Sampson: So in a fast paced environment. Um, so if we look at this as a computer, so there's the hardware, there's the infrastructure, you definitely need tools to be able to do it. But if I was going to look at it as a computer, the OS has to be quality because, um, I have a professor in college and one of the most memorable things that he told us was, all right, what should the curve be? What curve should I apply in this course? And this was my thermodynamics professor. Um, and you know, someone was like, the Bell curve. The, the highest score is the 100%. And then you go down from there. He's like, okay, so what about 95%? If someone got a 95% on a thermodynamics final, should that be the A, like, okay. Everyone was like, yeah. And then, um, he said, all right, now if you're flying an F14 and 95% of the wing is hanging off, would that be okay?
Matt Gjertsen: Yes.
Roy Sampson: And so that just really stuck with me. So there's no curve, there's no mastery, especially in technical training. Because, um, as Gwynne Shotwell said a while ago, it takes a million things to go right to get a rocket off the pad. It only takes one thing to go wrong to have a really catastrophic failure. So one of the things that I like to do is really try to build an OS for quality into the technicians.
Matt Gjertsen: Um, say, you got to say more on that. Like an operating system for quality.
Roy Sampson: Yes.
Matt Gjertsen: Like what, what is that? What does that look like? What does that mean when you say that?
Roy Sampson: What does that look like? Okay, so here's an anecdote from a previous course that I taught where I had a student who was going to pass on, um, on points.
Matt Gjertsen: Okay.
Roy Sampson: Yep. So technically they, technically they're going to pass by points. Uh, based on What NASA wants, NASA wants 80% on workmanship. Which means, like, if I take away a certain number of points, you will pass this course, you will get certified. NASA will be happy.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: Yes. Um, however, I wasn't comfortable allowing somebody with the workmanship quality that I was seeing to work on a rocket where astronauts could possibly go. Yeah, and back then I was, uh, we were talking about, uh, personality styles. I'm an, I'm a people pleaser. I didn't want people to be mad at me. And now I'm a trainer. I don't want to, I don't want to let this person down, you know, and so how do I, how do I do it this way? Like, do I fail this person? Do I allow them to pass? Because they are going to pass. Um, and so I really thought about it hard, long, uh, and hard. Um, and I told this person halfway through the course and the trajectory was not looking good. And I said, all right, so these are based on the, these are the things that I've found and you know, because I've gone over them with you, we've tried to correct it, and you will pass with points by the end of the course just based on the trajectory and the amount of other points that are left over. However, I would like you to make this decision because, uh, yeah, yeah, absolutely. Because, um, astronauts are going to be flying on this rocket.
Matt Gjertsen: Mhm.
Roy Sampson: Is this workmanship that you're proud of? And if the answer is no to either of those, then I would like you to make the decision of going back to your supervisor and then telling them, hey, I don't think I'm ready for this course yet. Can I practice some more and then come back when I feel more ready? Or you can finish the course, pass it, and I will give my notes to your supervisor. So either way they're going to find out the quality of workmanship. Um, so that's one anecdote. And guess which one they chose.
Matt Gjertsen: Did they choose to fix it or hold back?
Roy Sampson: Yes, they went back to the production floor.
Matt Gjertsen: There you go.
Roy Sampson: Worked more on, on the job training and then came back and then passed the second time around with a lot better, um, workmanship. And now on the other side, on the flip side, on the people manager side, the, the Os of quality then comes with me trying to convince a manager because what, what production leadership is trying to do is limit the amount of time that a technician is off the production floor. So if you're in training, you're not building and what I'm Being graded on is how fast I can build and how much I can build.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Speaker C: So.
Roy Sampson: So, um, if you are going to pass with 80%, me as a leader might be like just pass them so that we can start building things. But one of the things that I like to do and I love to do is raise that bar to 100% because of that wing analogy in my head, it's in my os. And what I would like to ask, uh, if there are any of you out there who are production leadership or manufacturing leadership, is how much issue or how many issue defects are you willing to tolerate once this technician that I'm training gets on the production floor? Like what is your target for um, for your whole floor? Yeah. And then how does that translate to this one person? Because an 80% could be five defects.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: And are you willing to tolerate five defects?
Matt Gjertsen: It's interesting because that's another, I think, important difference between technical training and what we normally see in traditional education. Right. So much of education is about what's, what's the passing level? And you pass and you move on. And it's a big conversation in, you know, primary education discussion right now. So Khan Academy, for anybody who's familiar with Khan Academy, he's uh, Khan, uh, and some people he works with are doing a lot of work of creating like actual physical schools. And one of the principles of these schools is the principle of mastery. So it's not about getting a 70 or an 80% that's good enough and you move on. Because we all, we, we all either us, we, we experience it or we know people who, it's like you miss that thing in math in 10th grade and we get to 11th grade, 11th is now that much harder because you miss that thing. And so by setting the standard of mastery and 100% is, is really, is really critical. Yep, that's a big, that's a big difference. And it's great in, you know, in the aerospace world and a lot of these technical worlds is you can so clearly root the, where the importance is. You know, it's, it's the ultimate thinking about the customer or the end user because the customer's life is going to depend on this. Right. Um, and so that's got to be a big part of creating that kind of quality mindset.
Roy Sampson: Yes, yes.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: So I think the original question was the high stakes environment of aerospace and the agility. So one that has to be uh, the os, which means it's non compromisable. Everything is built around that. That's why after the training records, the next thing we do is the, the quality criteria that I evaluated this person on.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: So that's os and those are two examples of how we, we infuse the OS into production leadership and then the, the technicians themselves.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: Um, another thing that I like to do is you, you give them points, you take away points for, for a little defect. Even, um, wearing ppe.
Matt Gjertsen: Mhm. Absolutely right. Yeah.
Roy Sampson: So typically it's all about the workmanship. But I will dock points off if I don't see you wearing nitrile gloves.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: I will dock points off if you, and you don't want to fail because you didn't wear your gloves. Yeah. Yes. So consequences, um, to, to not achieving those quality end up, uh, the procedural quality requirements.
Matt Gjertsen: Well, this is the thing that I think is, can be really impactful. I think there's a lot of lessons from the technical training world that can go to all training.
Roy Sampson: Mhm.
Matt Gjertsen: Because I always think about this. You know, I came from a more technical background in my training where I started off as an instructor pilot. And so when I, the, the first trainings that I was working on when I was in uh, when I joined SpaceX was I was working with the Environmental Health and Safety team making their compliance training and anybody who has helped make compliance training or taking compliance training, you know, the first three slides are all, these are all the OSHA regulations that uh, you know, require this training.
Roy Sampson: So much text.
Matt Gjertsen: So much text. And I go, okay, what do you want people to do? How do you know that they have the required knowledge? I either we're doing way too much because none of this really matters, or we're doing way too little if it actually matters.
Roy Sampson: Right.
Matt Gjertsen: And so it's, it's, it's asking those questions of like what do you want people to do? Um, I think it's something, a question that we need to be asking more in all kinds of training.
Roy Sampson: Yep.
Matt Gjertsen: Not just technical training. So the thing that I want to kind of bring it back to you as well is, you know, you've mentioned this a little bit of. There's. Oh, I remember something that you had when you were talking before. Something to remind me of when you're talking about the needs or the demands of the production leader.
Roy Sampson: Yep.
Matt Gjertsen: It was one thing that really surprised me and I think about this a lot in all kinds of companies because in the military there's no competing resources in that operations, training and evaluation are all three distinct. Different teams. Yes. They had different reporting structures all the way up to the Very top of the air force.
Roy Sampson: Mhm.
Matt Gjertsen: Right. And so um, I was really surprised honestly when I, when I came in and it was like in, in many production environments the production leader is responsible for training, is responsible for saying people are trained and is responsible for getting stuff done.
Roy Sampson: Yeah. The wolf watching the hen house.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah. It's like this, it's this crazy conflict of interest. Um, and there's different ways to solve it. Everybody does it differently. But I think it's just, it's something that really needs to be addressed full on, especially if you're moving quickly. Like, I'm not saying that people can't make a separation and that it isn't possible to keep everything in one roof, but you have to acknowledge that there's a lot of conflicting interests here and it takes a special person to be able to hold those things separate and really hold the line and say like, no, I'm not going to keep up with our production quota because our training isn't up to par. It takes a stronger leader to be able to do that.
Roy Sampson: Yes, yes. Uh, but on the technical trainer side you get to play both.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: Because you are pushing forward and pulling against quality and the build reliability and um, traditionally quality engineers and you're pulling back on production. So production wants to go faster and then quality wants to go slower and you have to do that shift back and forth. Because uh, the quality team would tell me it's like, well, you need to finish all this training and production will say we don't need all that training or we can't uh, take technicians off the production floor for that long. So can you shrink that one week long training into two days? Um, as a technical trainer we need to be able to be agile enough and creative enough to be able to be like, okay, so what were my quality requirements again? So that was another reason why I have that second, uh, in the way that I developed the program is because there may be other ways I can achieve these requirements that doesn't necessarily require them to go on the production floor. So if they're already doing it, um, on the floor because it was really hot that week and then the techs that were onboarding them just started training them. Then I don't need to train them, I don't need to show them the demonstrations and all that stuff. I just need to evaluate so that makes it a little bit more agile and they were able to work in production if there were not properly trained. I will find that out really quick. Yeah, the production will find it out faster.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: Because they were building untrained.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: And then they will find it faster and typically by the end of that week they'll be like, Roy, can you train these people?
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah, yeah. Well, I like that. Uh, I think that's a really important kind of philosophy and background for a lot of people who are training in training and in quality.
Roy Sampson: Yes.
Matt Gjertsen: We can get really caught up in like, but no, I, this is my checklist, this is what the regulation says
Roy Sampson: and I, I taught them to do it.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Uh, but sometimes you have to question. Okay. Like, and this comes, you know, SpaceX is obviously famous for always asking that question, like, where is this requirement coming from? Oh yeah. Why do we need to do this?
Roy Sampson: You know, question the requirement.
Matt Gjertsen: And so for the trainer responsible m for a technical training environment, you really need to understand the why where every single requirement is coming from so that you can confidently say, when can I substitute these things? When can I say the floor experience is good enough versus when? No, like there's something that I need to see them do or we can move forward. There's a lot of flexibility there.
Roy Sampson: Yes, yes, yes.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah. Excellent.
Speaker C: Yeah.
Matt Gjertsen: So we've been talking kind of around something that I want to address just directly. And that's the idea of leadership.
Roy Sampson: Yep.
Matt Gjertsen: And how is, what are the requirements? What do you need from whether it be supervisors, engineering, leadership, what's their place in a successful training program?
Roy Sampson: Okay, you jumped right over on the job trainers.
Matt Gjertsen: Let's start there. Let's start there then.
Roy Sampson: Um, okay, so I think I start with on the job trainers because I feel like that is the on ramp to leadership.
Matt Gjertsen: Okay. Oh, I love it.
Roy Sampson: Yes. That is a perfect on ramp to leadership.
Matt Gjertsen: Yes.
Roy Sampson: And any agile system requires to be able to duplicate itself. So when I'm creating a training program, I'm looking at what is a program going to look like on Mars? And so I don't treat it like an organization, I try to treat it like an organism. And what does every successful organism need to have one is the ability to duplicate itself.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: So on the job trainers are huge because as a new technical trainer, if your expectation from you is to train in the classroom, you're going to find really quickly that you're always training to the slowest person in the room because somebody trained them before they got to your classroom, making sure that they are going to pass the evaluation you're going to put them through. And it just depends on how they were trained before. So it's going to be very important then to one identify the individuals who are qualified to train. Um, and those skills that they're going to have and you as a technical trainer are going to nurture and foster in them are characteristics of leadership.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: One, they're going to need to evaluate their peers. Two, they're going to need to be able to prioritize, um, their time. Do I build or do I train? So they're going to need, uh, to be able to push back and say, I need to train this person because we're so close and if I can finish this today, they're going to be cranking out step, step, step 1, 2, 3 and 4 by tomorrow versus.
Matt Gjertsen: This is a critical mission like that. We gotta meet this deadline. I need to focus on the work.
Roy Sampson: Yes.
Matt Gjertsen: You know, like it's, it's flexing between those two.
Roy Sampson: Yes.
Matt Gjertsen: And being able to prioritize it 100%.
Roy Sampson: And I think one of the things that, um, you started asking in your previous podcast was, um, and I love your, your line in um, LinkedIn is I train good engineers or great engineers to be great managers or great leaders. Because by the time we put someone into leadership, first of all, I don't think we know how to screen for leadership skills. It's very difficult to do that, um, in interviews because you want them to be able to demonstrate those skills. And it's difficult to demonstrate that in half an hour to an hour. Um, however, so, so if, if you get someone and put them in a leadership role, a lot of times the training required for them isn't available until they get into that leadership role.
Matt Gjertsen: Yep.
Roy Sampson: But what on the job training does is it gives them those skills, evaluating their peers, motivating their peers. Because if, if I'm giving you too much and you're starting to get discouraged.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: Oh, you're, you're going to take longer to train.
Speaker C: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: So I need to know how to motivate my peers, evaluate my peers and then drive production forward.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: And so that's why I really consider on the job trainers to be, uh, the on ramp to leadership. And they're part of your next line. Moving up.
Matt Gjertsen: I love, I'm really glad you highlighted on the job training because it's something, you know, in the military when, at least from in the pilot world, in the flying world, the natural progression of a pilot is to go from, uh, a co pilot to an aircraft commander, to an instructor pilot to an evaluator pilot. Like that is the natural progression. And so being an instructor pilot does not mean that you are off in a school teaching people how to fly. It means that out you are qualified so that out on your missions you can train people. Right. Uh, just like on the job training. And it's such a great way to teach those leadership skills and to see who has more capabilities. But it's also such a great way to expand the reach of the training team. That's always. We never have enough people. We never can do. I mean, uh, I guess on this OJT point, how did you, Foster, make sure you were? Because I think that the worry that everybody has and that why training teams might necessarily not want to fully engage with an OJT program is the loss of control. And how did you foster good relationships, making sure they knew you and they knew what you were gonna get, what the training they needed? I'm sure there was a lot of background. It's, it's a tug of war, I would imagine.
Roy Sampson: Yes. 100%.
Speaker C: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: And the best way to play tug of war is to have fun with it.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: So we, uh, it was on an interview question, someone says, hey, SpaceX is landing rockets and that's changing the, the landscape for rocketry. What would change it for training? Do you remember this question? And this candidate, I don't remember taught, says, make it fun.
Matt Gjertsen: Yes.
Roy Sampson: And I take that. And one of the objectives that I have for every single one of my classroom courses is we're going to have fun. So this is going to be fun. And I take a temperature pulse every day. Are you guys still having fun? Yes. Because another thing that happens when you're having fun is you're willing to take risks. Um, you're willing to take risks. So someone will say, hey, what will happen if I take the solder iron and I hold it a little too long, uh, on this terminal as I'm trying to solder to the wire?
Speaker C: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: One thing that I love to say is, try and find out. I know what's going to happen, but I want you to own the experience so that you can, you can learn from it.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: So, yeah. And, and make it fun. And so a, uh, term or a phrase that usually is like, try and find out and you're going to get in trouble, you know, becomes a, uh, tagline that, that is more fun in the classroom.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah. Yeah. I love, I love it. Yeah. So that was a great, uh, great sidebar on the, on the OJT stuff.
Roy Sampson: Yep.
Matt Gjertsen: I think it. And it does lead into. Because I think you're 100. Right. It does give us a lot of ideas of, you know, whether or not people are going to Be effective leaders. But now let's like look directly at the leaders themselves.
Roy Sampson: At the leaders themselves?
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah. What, what part do they play?
Roy Sampson: So you have a day to day leader. So your lead. Um, I'm just going to use this terminology because each air. Each company is going to have a different title.
Matt Gjertsen: They're all going to be different.
Roy Sampson: Yeah. So for a day to day leader, I'm gonna say that's the lead. You wanna make sure that you are prioritizing training.
Matt Gjertsen: Mhm.
Roy Sampson: So okay, I'm gonna give you another analogy. So this is where the dance instruction and dance training comes to play. So the partner dancing. If I was a partner dancer and you are my follow.
Matt Gjertsen: Mhm.
Roy Sampson: I am holding your hands. So this is the analogy for the day to day leader.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: I am holding your hands, telling you every day. Okay. So work on this training, uh, until half of. After four hours. Four hours you take a lunch and then the next four hours you build production. This is the easy stuff. You can get that done. So I need to be able to manage your time to give you the space for training. It's actually very similar. Hands on.
Matt Gjertsen: That's what you need from the lead.
Roy Sampson: That's what I need from the lead. The day to day leader, uh, is create space and prioritize training for the week long leader or the supervisor.
Matt Gjertsen: And usually just uh. And again, I think you're 100% right. This is going to be different. At least in a lot of my experiences at companies. Like the lead is often not the solid line leader. Like they might not be responsible for the performance reports or HR issues or anything like that. The lead is truly the day to day. How do we get the work done? Do you have the right tools like that kind of stuff? And then the supervisor is the one who. They might be, man, they might be supervisor for 35 people.
Roy Sampson: Yes.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: Yep, yep. Um, and I'm glad you you brought that up because I actually forgot a bunch of stuff that, that is in this analogy Dance. It's a part. It is, it is because. Because I am the one holding your hand. I actually your experience of this dance is going to be based on my leadership.
Matt Gjertsen: Yes.
Roy Sampson: So I, I have to make you comfortable. If I'm leading you. I have to make you feel safe.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: So these are the things that a day to day leader needs to be able to do. Because if you don't feel safe, like if I'm telling you, okay, don't make any mistakes on it, I'm going to get fired.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: Then you don't feel safe and, and, and you're going to start slowing down.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: Because every positive feedback I give you, it's like pedaling on a bike. And every critical feedback I give you is like cranking the handlebars. It's directive, but it's going to slow you down. It's going to cause you to lose balance.
Matt Gjertsen: Sure.
Roy Sampson: So I need to be able to balance.
Matt Gjertsen: That's a great analogy.
Roy Sampson: Yeah. As a day to day leader, I need to be able to balance that motivate you so I don't discourage you. So you keep moving forward and at the same time give you enough correction so that um, your training is amazing. You're going to crank out amazing product. So that's the day to day leader. The week to week leader is the supervisor. Then I would like to say that that person is like a dance instructor. So I may not be holding your hands, but I am managing the leaders who are holding your hands, saying okay, on this week I want you to be able to get them past training A, B and C, have them finish all their online training. So directing that. And just like the day to day leader is buying time for their trainers to be able to train the new people, my supervisor, the week to week has to be able to free up the time as well. So they need to support the training by, I don't know, follow up with the technician that's being trained. Hey, how's everything doing? Um, are you doing great providing that feedback if I was the dance instructor and saying wow, your footwork looks amazing. It's going to motivate you as well because you're higher up and I know my footwork is amazing and I don't have to worry about my footwork.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: Um, so that's the week to week is like the dance instructor and then manager, then is the dj. The manager provides you the music that makes you want to dance.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: Yes.
Matt Gjertsen: Okay.
Roy Sampson: So if I was a manager then I would be creating uh, an environment conducive to dancing.
Matt Gjertsen: Mhm.
Roy Sampson: Which is, I don't know, turn down the lights. Would you want to dance, you know, boogie down if the lights were all on?
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: No you wouldn't. Or classical music. What kind of music are you playing? So what tone am I setting with the whole team and the whole department? Am I giving ah, a spotlight on training?
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: Am I giving a spotlight to the technicians that are skilling up? Upskilling.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: So I, I know um, a manager that I, I once had who, you know, status slides usually have production metrics. On it. Yeah, like especially if it's a, a monthly or a quarterly.
Matt Gjertsen: Mhm.
Roy Sampson: He dedicated a quarter of the slide to everyone that got promoted.
Matt Gjertsen: Nice.
Roy Sampson: Yeah, just simple highlight training and upskilling.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: So on that level, you want people to dance. You want people to want to dance.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: Um, so I mean what does the environment look like? Is it conducive to training? Do you have an area for training? Do you have a training center? Do you have tools dedicated for training? Yeah.
Matt Gjertsen: Um, on a really random sidebar, um, I think it's the company Lunar Outpost. They're one of the companies that's like building a lunar rover for, for going to the moon and stuff. Their mission control. The lights literally change color depending on the phase of the mission.
Roy Sampson: That's awesome.
Matt Gjertsen: So it's like to set the tone, you know?
Roy Sampson: Yes.
Matt Gjertsen: Like blue for this or red. So it's like it's sort of like on Star Trek when they go red alert and the whole bridge turns red, you know, um, so it can play a huge role. The environment is so important.
Roy Sampson: Yeah, yeah, that's. It set the tone and that's as high as I got.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah. Okay.
Roy Sampson: Well I can go higher, but the analogy gets looser, I'm sure.
Matt Gjertsen: Well, and then, and then it becomes, you know, like you said, every single company is going to be organized a little bit differently. And so when you kind of start to get to the director level or the VP level, there's going to be so many changes of you know, some companies, like, you know we were talking about some companies, this role is sitting in production, sometimes it's sitting in quality, sometimes it's sitting in HR as part of like a centralized training function. And so it's, it's going to be very different. There's going to be a lot of competing things. I think that it's always been one of the interests of that I have of. I don't know if any of you can think of this back to your company. I always. Your companies. I always like to think about mapping out where training is in an organization, you know, because one of the things that I have definitely found is that training is one of those things that is a need that will get met somehow.
Speaker C: Right?
Matt Gjertsen: Somehow. And so you can either choose to meet it in one place and properly resource and fully resources there and then meet all the needs or you can not just let it pop up. And sometimes that, you know, the, sometimes the federated style of training can be um, sometimes. Sometimes it can be intentional and it can work. Yeah, I think the federated style can work really well if it's intentional.
Roy Sampson: Yep.
Matt Gjertsen: You know, when it doesn't work is when it's accidental and it's just random. Directors start hiring training people because they know they need it, you know, and so it's, it's just one of those things that I think is, is really important to think about. It's like the training need is there, especially if you're in any kind of environment where there are true quality standards.
Speaker C: Yep.
Roy Sampson: Right.
Matt Gjertsen: Um, you're, it's, it's gonna come and
Roy Sampson: that you need to comply to as well.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Roy Sampson: So it doesn't matter if you're an arrow or space, you need to comply with FAA, you need to comply, comply with AS 9100, NASA. So.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. What haven't we covered any other. I know you've been thinking about this a lot. I think we've, I think we've covered a lot of ground.
Roy Sampson: We did.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah. Anyway, this, this has been a fantastic discussion.
Roy Sampson: Any questions?
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah. Do we have, did any, did this discussion bring anything up? Well, if you. I know you all don't have mics, so we can repeat that.
Roy Sampson: Yeah, we'll repeat it.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah. What do you, what do you got?
Speaker C: Uh, I really, really talking about, if anything, that translation, um, to your traditional and um, more technical oriented, uh, design. And I wanted to know. You both very much know your stuff. You're both very close to the technical knowledge. And for people who are maybe a little bit more stepping in the mid side where they are not the subject matter experts, but they're working with leaders or direct subject matter experts, how is there any translation we could do there? Like how can we better partner? It'll have. When we have a little bit of app and knowledge. Yeah.
Matt Gjertsen: And also build our credibility.
Roy Sampson: Awesome.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah, Fantastic question. So the question is if you are coming from a more enablement background, a learning background, you or you're coming into a new company, new industry, you don't have the technical experience. How can you better partner with subject matter experts, with the technical people? How do you. I think, how do you prove yourself? Honestly? Yeah.
Roy Sampson: I had zero training experience when I got hired, uh, as a technical trainer. And um, the quote that I would give my manager back then was, we are trying to challenge NASA. Why would I hire somebody who's been doing that for 20 years? And so it was very difficult to build that credibility. And one of the things is if you don't know, say you don't know, don't try to BS your way through it. That's number one. And then two, like Matt said before, training is going to happen. Training is happening. You just have to find where that training is happening. And what you're going to find is you're going to identify the on the job trainers, the technicians and the subject, the cultural subject matter experts that are doing it on the production floor and you're going to find the engineers and supervisors who are supposed to be doing it and then you become a bridge for both MHM and make it fun. Yeah.
Matt Gjertsen: And from my side, where I did sit in HR and, and had, and had to come to a lot of people in this way, I think one of the, the obvious, the answer is always be curious be it's, it's not. I, I think the idea of often when you say we need to prove ourselves or if you have that kind of in the back of your mind, it can come with like almost like an aggressive tone. Like look, uh, I'm trying to, but no, really, like I know a lot about learning, I know a lot about training. I can help you just forget about all that. You don't know anything. They're the expert. I always start from that point of view of like, I'm just here to learn from you and get really, really curious. I was, I was blessed when I first started working at Vandenberg Air Force Base at the uh, launch site that SpaceX had there. There are a couple engineers that I just got, had really good relationships with where they really walked me through the details of like, like millisecond to millisecond, how the Merlin engine started up. Like, and I got, I just really wanted to know. So for me that was easy because I'm a space nerd and I have a background in physics. And so I was like, I really wanted to dive in and so for if, if that's not necessarily your jam, you have to make it your jam, right? Like whatever company, whatever industry uh, you're in, it's not just about being an expert in what you do, it's about becoming an expert in that industry, getting really interested and excited about it. Another technique that I, that I really highly, uh, recommend to folks is just read a lot of books about the subject. Right. You know, I started. So I now have my own practice and so recently I started getting to work with a lot of, there's a lot of nuclear energy startups right now making small modular reactors and I started working with a few of them. So I went out and I bought like Admiral Rickover's book on creating the Nuclear, Navy and all these things to start to understand like, what's the history of this? Where does this come from? Um, because those are things that maybe these people take for granted and they would never think to bring it up. Right. But so it's just anything you can do to show real interest, um, is, is, is really helpful.
Roy Sampson: Yeah. And, and to add onto that, to the showing real interest is one of the things I did was I went on the production floor as soon as I came in, said hi to all the technicians, and before I left I would say hi to all the technicians, be visible, say bye to all the technicians. So we, we are developing a relationship with those that we're training. And um, I think one of the biggest public speaking tips that I can give anyone, especially if you're a new trainer, is you are on stage before you get on stage. So even if it's before you're uh, at ah, the venue and you're speaking to the technicians that you know you're going to be training, you can already start developing that rapport and they're going to want to listen to you. Doesn't matter what come out of your mouth, they're going to want to listen to you because they like you. So get to know the technicians. One of the things that I did was I literally for a week would just walk around asking people, what do you hate about this process? Like what are the problem points that you're seeing? Because everyone loves talking about their problems. You don't have to pull teeth out of that. And then I created a checklist of how to solve all these problems. And as you solve each problem, you're building rapport as well. Uh, yeah, yeah, yes.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah.
Speaker C: Um, great talk. You mentioned something earlier about L and D can't do everything.
Roy Sampson: Yeah.
Speaker C: Extension and development, um, and some organizations that could be called the. On the Jong Tringer, which you mentioned before, um, in my field he had morning shafts.
Matt Gjertsen: Yes.
Roy Sampson: Yeah, yeah, right.
Speaker C: Some of those are people who have been born, told to do it. And some of them, you know, they've raised their hand because they want to get um, exposure, you know, maybe into lady outside of their day job. So this voluntary, my question for you is you talked about getting to know kind of like a heat map, you know, where the training and stuff is happening in their organization. But how do you um, take into consideration those who have volunteered, you know, to be learning champs, um, how do you help them to know whether or not what they're doing is valuable or impactful or um, kind of meeting that Bridge to say, you know what, let me catch my train, see what they're doing and help them. Uh, I think my question, I think my question is appalling as I'm just, how do I, how do I empower letting chance be the extension of L and D, uh, when I have a relationship with them, but also if I don't have a relationship and I'm finding out about. Oh, you're doing training over there too.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah, yeah.
Roy Sampson: So you can dispense with my question.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah, So I think.
Roy Sampson: So I think it's a question.
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah, yeah. So I think there's two questions that I'm hearing from that there's kind of the. How do you build a relationship with. Yeah. The train, the trainer or the on the job trainers, the people who are out there doing training who maybe don't have any formal experience in training, but make sure you give them that. Um, and then I think the second one is almost like, how do you. Maybe they are, they do have experience, but you don't have a bridge with them. How do you develop the relationship? So let's split those into two. So the first question is, when you're talking to people who they've been empowered with learning or training, maybe they don't have a lot of formal experience and they don't know you yet, how do you start to resource them, help them become more effective?
Roy Sampson: You have to build that training. Yeah. You have to duplicate yourself. So at minimum mentorship even, I think one of the quickest way or quickest wins to do that is have them create training for their teams and deploy it. So if there's a specific procedure or a new procedure that's coming out and they're the ones that worked on it, because they probably are the ones that helped the engineers vet it, uh, then have them, hey, can help me make the training video for it. And then they're actually going to start getting used to the tools of a content developer, uh, of a trainer and then deliver it to their teams. Uh, so you're developing a relationship with them as a mentor and they're becoming an apprentice and they're developing the credibility with their team as well. Yeah.
Matt Gjertsen: And I think on that second question of developing those relationships, I'll kind of dive into that a little bit and then pass to you. Because I've had to do that a lot where it's like you. There's all these people doing training everywhere. And that's why I say, I think the federated model can work when it's intentional, when it's non intentional. It's really hard to bring everybody back together. And I, I think I, I have seen some headway be made if you just, you know, have like a monthly or a quarterly get together where you have everybody come together and just talk about what they're working on. And then the more you can. If you're the one trying to, I mean, similar to what you were saying, if you're the one trying to make those bridges that never existed before, realizing that there is probably no reason fundamentally for them to care about you, they are, they are feeding up to their leadership. Their leadership is resourcing them. And so if you want to build that relationship, it's all about what can you do for them, what can you bring to them, how are you going to, what value are you providing to them? That's what you need to start with. And so even if you do have, hey, we're going to have these monthly get togethers. Well, why, who cares? Like, why is anybody going to be there?
Roy Sampson: Pizza, lunch.
Matt Gjertsen: There you go. Provide food.
Roy Sampson: Tell me what you're proud of and then what do you need?
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah, what do you need? There you go. What do you need?
Roy Sampson: What can I do for you?
Matt Gjertsen: Yeah. Excellent. Okay, well, we're closing out on time here, so thank you so much. This has been, this has been fantastic. I'm really excited that we were able to do this live. Roy, thank you so much. It's been great having this chat. Um, and I, yeah, I look forward to seeing you all. And for those listening, I hope you had a. Had a really good show.
Roy Sampson: Sweet. Thank you everybody.
Matt Gjertsen: Just a quick interjection. I wanted to remind you that I run a company called Bilt where we train the next generation of hard tech leaders how to build teams capable of solving the world's hardest problems. If you are an aspiring technical leader, an existing leader, or responsible for training leaders in your organization, Please check out BuiltLeaders.com to see if we can support you and your team.
Other episodes covering the same guests and topics, from across The B2B Podcast Index.
We need to rein in Silicon Valley unicorns, says law profModern Law Library · on SpaceX96 / 100
512. Is SpaceX Over or Undervalued, Why Consensus Kills, How Chewy Beat Amazon, and the GameStop Saga from a Board Member (Larry Cheng)The Full Ratchet (TFR) · on SpaceX86 / 100
DeepSeek's $50B Round, OpenAI's Delayed IPO, and the GP Stakes Market with CAZ Investmentstrading places · on SpaceX86 / 100
063: THE SHIFT TO SPACE: The Rise of Orbital ComputingTechBurst Talks · on SpaceX86 / 100
Is Starlink eating rural NZ?The Business of Tech · on SpaceX85 / 100
Space Investor: SpaceX Is Only 20% of the OpportunityFinding Peak w/ Ryan Hanley · on SpaceX83 / 100
The Leadership Shift Every Engineer Has to Make w/ Ashley Chang81 / 100Why Most Leadership Training Doesn’t Translate to the Floor w/ Craig Coyle63 / 100How Great Leaders Build Alignment Without Slowing Down Execution71 / 100Stop Waiting for Permission to Lead w/ Keith Ferrazzi79 / 100Why High Performers Learn to Stay Uncomfortable