Greg Smith

Having that philosophy stated is what makes recruiting, hiring, and promoting focused rather than improvised; without it, each offer and promotion becomes a one-off negotiation.

The post lays out the three positions an employer can take and says the choice should be made deliberately, then sends readers to an Insperity breakdown for the mechanics. Smith does not give numbers, ranges, or a worked example, so the post establishes the decision and leaves the arithmetic open.

Read original

The list is ordered, with compensation first: a clear compensation strategy, regular benchmarking to keep salaries fair and competitive, pay transparency so employees understand how pay works, a promotion policy with clear and standardised criteria, and consistent performance evaluations across the organisation. The through-line is that fairness is a system, not an intention — employees trust pay when the rules around it are visible and applied the same way to everyone.

The post is a five-item checklist, each item a phrase long, framed as a way to grow while avoiding common people problems. No item is explained in the post; the detail sits behind a link.

Read original

The argument is that employees engage with a benefits package when they can see what it actually covers and when it helps them right now, which is why a seasonal hook does real work: it turns a general pitch into items someone can check against their own account and a reason to look at enrollment details today.

The post notes that health savings accounts and flexible spending accounts cover sunscreen, insect repellent, and prescription sunglasses, and that flexible schedules, summer Fridays, and paid time off help employees manage family schedules over the summer. It closes by pointing to an Insperity guide on building a benefits package.

Read original

The value is framed as structural — who carries the paperwork — rather than as a discount.

The post answers the question in its own headline — what the savings of working with a PEO are — in two short paragraphs and a link, with no figures, client names, or comparisons. It reads as a definition of the arrangement rather than a case for one.

Read original

Rather than asserting this from personal authority, Smith anchors it to a named expert and then turns the question back to the audience, asking whether they had a summer job as a teenager and how it shaped their career. This is Smith's curatorial mode: a reported trend, an attributed source, and an invitation for readers to supply their own experience.

The trend is credited to Jaune Little, Director of Recruiting Services at Insperity. The closing question is the one place in the professional posts where personal reader experience is invited rather than summarised.

Read original

Smith quotes the line about iron sharpening iron and argues it takes contact, consistency, honesty, and sometimes friction — that iron does not sharpen iron from a distance. Reading the posts together, this is the same conviction as the workplace advice: outcomes follow from deliberate choices about position, structure, and company.

Smith credits a message from Clark on identity in Christ, then names three men and their contexts — Matt "Kuch" Kuchers, described as having spent decades investing in people through ministry, leadership, and Athletes in Action; Clark Kellogg, described as a former Ohio State and NBA basketball player and longtime college basketball analyst; and Brian Burgett, described as a business leader who helped build and lead Kokosing Construction into one of the nation's most successful family-owned construction companies. A separate post marks the first week of a discipleship series held Tuesday mornings at 6:30 in Dublin, Ohio, tied to the Christian Business Men's Connection.

Read original · Original 2 · Original 3

A newcomer gets the frame in a few sentences.

Smith argues that compensation is one of the most powerful tools an employer has for attracting and keeping good people, and that the useful first step is choosing a competitive position — lead the market, match it, or take a financially realistic middle ground.

• The claim is that a stated philosophy makes recruiting, hiring, and promotion more focused.
• The mechanics are handed to a linked Insperity breakdown rather than explained on the page, so the post sets up a topic more than it settles one.

For brands planning a campaign

For a PEO or HR services partner, this is an opening rather than a finished argument: the post names the lead, match, or middle decision but gives no numbers. A follow-up that shows what each stance costs and how it shifts offer ranges would continue the same conversation with the same reader.

It also shows which people topics recur across the feed.

The post lists five things a growing business should have: a clear compensation strategy, regular benchmarking to keep salaries fair and competitive, pay transparency so employees understand how compensation works, a promotion policy with clear standardized criteria, and consistent performance evaluations across the organization. It frames these as preventing common people problems, and stops at naming them — no item is explained, and the detail sits behind a link.

For brands planning a campaign

Every line is a possible collaboration topic, and pay transparency and promotion criteria are the two least crowded. The checklist format itself is easy to reuse in a co-produced piece without losing Smith's voice.

A reader deciding whether Smith writes original analysis or passes along sources should open this one.

Smith reports that competition for entry-level roles has increased and that many organizations run leaner teams and prioritize candidates who can contribute immediately, leaving fewer openings for first-time workers.

• The point is attributed to Jaune Little, Director of Recruiting Services at Insperity.
• The post closes by asking readers whether they had a summer job as a teenager and how it affected their careers — the one place in the professional posts where personal experience is invited rather than summarized.

For brands planning a campaign

Early-career and hiring content is a live theme, and the closing question is an audience-participation device a partner could carry into a co-produced post or poll. The attribution style also matters: Smith credits the source by name and title, so any collaboration would likely be credited similarly.

It shows how Smith turns a benefits pitch into details an employee can verify against their own account.

The post notes that health savings accounts and flexible spending accounts cover sunscreen, insect repellent, and prescription sunglasses, and that flexible schedules, summer Fridays, and paid time off help employees manage family schedules.

• The seasonal hook does real work here: it converts a general benefits-package message into concrete items and a reason to look at enrollment details now.
• It then points to an Insperity guide for building a benefits package.

For brands planning a campaign

Concrete benefit details tied to a season or enrollment window are exactly what a PEO can co-produce, because the specifics come from plan rules rather than opinion. A partner could supply the detail and let Smith supply the framing.

It is the shortest explanation of how Smith describes PEO value, which is the subject a prospective partner cares about most.

Smith writes that a professional employer organization can give employees access to cost-effective, comprehensive benefits without the costly administrative and regulatory burdens, and that as plan sponsor the PEO handles time-consuming plan administration. There are no figures, client names, or comparisons, so it reads as a definition rather than a case for a specific arrangement.

For brands planning a campaign

This is the natural anchor for a compensation-and-benefits collaboration, and the obvious gap is proof: costs, timelines, or a worked example. A partner that can supply those numbers would be extending Smith's existing message rather than changing it.

Read it to understand how Smith credits peers and how explicitly faith shapes the posting.

Smith quotes the line about iron sharpening iron and argues that it takes contact, consistency, honesty, and sometimes friction, not distance.

• Smith credits a message from Clark about identity in Christ, then names three men and their contexts: Matt “Kuch” Kuchers, described as having spent decades investing in people through ministry, leadership, and Athletes in Action; Clark Kellogg, described as a former Ohio State and NBA basketball player and longtime college basketball analyst; and Brian Burgett, described as a business leader who helped build and lead Kokosing Construction into one of the nation's most successful family-owned construction companies.
• The argument is that the people around someone change what that person believes is possible.

For brands planning a campaign

Credibility here works by naming.

• A brand considering a collaboration should expect to be named rather than used anonymously.
• The explicit faith framing is also a real constraint: it narrows which partners fit, and it is not separable from how Smith writes about people.

Useful for anyone weighing event or community-based collaboration.

Smith marks the start of a discipleship series — week one, chapter one, book one — held Tuesday mornings at 6:30 in Dublin, and tags the Christian Business Men's Connection in Columbus and nationally, along with Jared Weston. Because it is a first-week post, the format, size, and duration of the group are not established by this evidence.

For brands planning a campaign

A recurring local group is an asset for event-based or community collaboration, and Tuesday mornings at 6:30 is a specific, testable detail. Any event partnership would need more evidence on group size and cadence than this single post provides.

It shows the personal register and family context a general reader would want before treating the feed as purely a work feed.

Smith's son Reilly Smith ran the half marathon, and Smith walked the half with Reilly's wife, Mary (Runkle) Smith, finishing her first half marathon.

• Smith notes they brought books and music to listen to but talked the whole way.
• There is no professional tie and no commercial element in the post.

For brands planning a campaign

This is family and health content, not a brand surface. If a partnership were considered here, it would rest on the event or lifestyle angle rather than anything Smith has done commercially on the page, and nothing in this post signals an appetite for that.

One post argues that choosing a pay philosophy — leading the market, matching it, or settling on a financially realistic middle ground — is what makes recruiting, hiring, and promoting "far more focused and effective," and points readers to an Insperity guide on building a compensation plan that supports growth and retention. A second post puts a clear compensation strategy at the top of a people-strategy checklist for growing businesses, followed by regular salary benchmarking to keep pay fair and competitive, pay transparency, standardised promotion criteria, and consistent performance evaluations.

A short setup paragraph states the business problem, then links out to a third-party guide with topic hashtags; the checklist post is a compact five-item list.

For brands planning a campaign

This is the closest match to a compensation-and-benefits brief. The topic already recurs, and the framing — pay philosophy as a decision that shapes every later hiring and retention choice — gives a brand a specific hook for a co-created explainer, checklist, or webinar rather than a generic salary post.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

It finishes by recommending an Insperity guide on building a benefits package that resonates with a team.

Leads with a relatable seasonal scenario, drops in specific eligible expenses, then routes readers to a longer guide.

Benefits posts consistently hand the substance to a linked third-party guide rather than explaining the rule in the post itself.

For brands planning a campaign

Useful for a benefits-focused collaboration aimed at employers rather than consumers: the post shows Smith can make an abstract benefits package concrete with small, checkable details. A brand could supply the eligibility detail and let Smith carry the "did you know" framing.

Examples: Source 1

Opens with the reader's question as the headline, then answers in two short paragraphs and a link.

For brands planning a campaign

This is the one post that speaks squarely to a PEO or HR-services buyer. It is a ready-made topic for a collaboration that explains the economics of outsourcing — plan sponsorship, administrative load, benefit access — without needing a new angle to be invented.

Examples: Source 1

Smith draws the point from Jaune Little, Director of Recruiting Services at Insperity, then asks the audience whether they had a summer job as a teenager and how it shaped their career.

Borrows an outside expert's framing for authority, then closes with a direct question to the audience to drive replies.

For brands planning a campaign

A talent-acquisition angle rather than a compensation one. The comment-prompt format is a reusable template for a collaboration that wants audience stories — a recruiter or workforce brand could seed the expert quote and let Smith run the question.

Examples: Source 1

One reflects on surrounding yourself with "iron sharpens iron" relationships and names three men — Matt "Kuch" Kuchers, Clark Kellogg, and Brian Burgett — for how they challenge and strengthen him.

• Another announces week one of a discipleship series run by the Christian Business Men's Connection in Dublin, Ohio, at 6:30am on Tuesdays.
• A third describes a dinner with Christopher Orecchio, his wife Deb, and Smith's wife Bess Smith, and the faith journeys they discussed.

First-person reflection with named people and groups, written to encourage the reader toward similar relationships rather than to sell anything.

For brands planning a campaign

This is the tone of the surrounding content, not a separate audience. Any collaboration should expect the business material to sit alongside faith and leadership posts, and brands whose messaging fits that register will look native; those that don't should plan the collaboration around the HR posts specifically.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

For brands planning a campaign

Shows an event-friendly poster who will publicly credit introductions and organisations by name. For a brand running local or cause-linked activity, this is a realistic template for how a partnership would appear in the feed — though it reads as personal endorsement, so fit matters more than reach here.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

One post cites Jaune Little, an Insperity recruiting director, on entry-level hiring. The posts do not state Smith’s role at Insperity or whether the relationship is paid or employment-based.

View example

The post is a mention of participation, not a stated sponsorship or commercial partnership.

View example

The post does not state any commercial relationship.

View example

Smith argues a company should pick a market position and hold to clear promotion and evaluation rules; Sam Reeve argues that compensation data has a shelf life and that pay transparency without explained decision criteria leaves employees staring at a number they cannot interpret. Both also work the same territory of frameworks that managers have to apply in practice, and both use external platforms — Insperity guides for Smith, the People/AI Strategy Forum conversation and podcast for Reeve — to carry the longer explanation.

Reeve develops an argument across several paragraphs, names specific sources of market data, and frames the reader as someone responsible for compensation strategy; Smith states a position in a few sentences and hands the mechanics to a linked third-party guide. Reeve's posts are a total-rewards practitioner's read on data and transparency, where Smith's are a curated intake on the same themes for a general HR audience.

Read original · Original 2 · Original 3 · Original 4

Gulian argues compensation conversations should start from the candidate's career goals and an upfront range rather than negotiating skill; Smith puts pay transparency on the list of rules that keep a pay promise credible. Both treat talent acquisition as a relationships-and-judgement job that technology supports rather than replaces.

Gulian writes from inside the profession, addressing fellow recruiters and talent leaders and celebrating the work itself; Smith writes as a curator reporting an expert's finding — the entry-level squeeze attributed to a named Insperity recruiting director — and asking readers for their own stories. Gulian's posts are longer, first-person, and industry-facing; Smith's range more widely across pay, benefits, and outsourcing before returning to hiring.

Read original · Original 2 · Original 3 · Original 4

Bodnar reads high turnover as an alignment problem between mission, measurement, and money, and warns that AI-polished applications meeting AI screening create a loop that loses sight of the human in human resources; Smith's checklist makes compensation clarity, standardised promotion criteria, and consistent evaluation the rules that keep employees from leaving.

Bodnar writes from a Canadian practice perspective, quoting replacement costs and naming the consulting services — Horizons HR and Operant — that address them, so the posts read as advisory and commercial.

• Smith's posts carry no figures or service pitch and instead route readers to Insperity explainers.
• Bodnar's posts are also more explicitly opinionated about AI's limits in recruiting.

Read original · Original 2 · Original 3

The reviewed posts make a case rather than a list: compensation data has a shelf life, and pay transparency without visible decision logic leaves employees able to see a range but not understand it. That suits a PEO or HR services company that wants the collaboration to carry a point of view about how pay decisions should be made — for example, a piece on why publishing a range is not the same as explaining pay — and that is comfortable sharing the buyer conversation with a creator whose commercial work sits in compensation strategy itself, since the post routes readers to a compensation-strategy consultancy.

You get less range.

• Both reviewed posts stay inside compensation strategy and pay transparency; there is no benefits, PEO, or plan-administration material, so a benefits-led brief would have to be built from nothing.
• The writing is also more analytical than practical: it compares data sources and argues for judgment, where Smith's posts hand a manager a five-point checklist they can act on.
• And because the creator's linked offer is a compensation consultancy, a PEO collaboration puts the creator's service and the brand's in front of the same buyer, so the working boundary between the two would need to be set explicitly.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

The reviewed posts speak to the TA profession directly — celebrating Global Talent Acquisition Day, arguing that AI raises rather than replaces TA judgment — and treat pay transparency as a candidate-experience question: the range is stated upfront, and the conversation moves to career goals, growth, and fit instead of who negotiates better. A brand serving recruiting teams, or whose message is about candidate trust and hiring process, gets a closer audience match than Smith's employer-side compensation framing offers.

The compensation substance is thinner.

• There is no benchmarking, no salary-structure design, and no employer-side mechanics — the posts cover what candidates should experience, not how pay is set or reviewed.
• A brief built around a pay-philosophy explainer would lose that material and would need the brand to supply all of it.
• Smith's repeatable problem-then-guide shape also gives a partner a clearer slot to insert benchmark numbers and plan detail than a profession-advocacy post does.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

The reviewed posts do that directly: high turnover framed as an alignment problem, an average replacement cost of about $31,000 in Canada, and an argument that retention requires mission, measurement, and money designed together.

• Bodnar also names a fractional HR practice and project-based engagements, so a brand selling HR operations support is talking to the same buyer.
• A Canada-focused brief gets a second advantage from the regional cost framing.

You give up specificity on pay design.

• The compensation content is a retention argument rather than a structure argument — no market positioning, no pay-transparency mechanics, no benchmarking.
• The second reviewed post is about AI and HR rather than pay, so the compensation thread is one post deep.
• The Canada-specific cost framing and the creator's own fractional HR offer also overlap the brand's service, raising the same conflict question as with Reeve, and the AI-and-HR post shows a wider topic range that could dilute a tightly compensation-focused campaign.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2