Article
Reducing Silo-Mentality and Getting Teams to Collaborate
August 24, 2020
Develop A Collaborative Environment
The team leader plays a key role in creating a team culture or climate. If you want to work with a team where there’s an expectation that people will collaborate, and where team members actively look for ways to support one another, it is up to you to consciously build that team.
When assembling a team, whether new hires or from within the organization, look for people who are team players. That means that their competitive spirit is aimed at achieving goals and winning for the team, rather than on raising their own status or trying to one-up their colleagues. Some people view the world as a zero-sum game, where there are limited resources and they must compete to get their fair share. This is the opposite of an attitude of abundance that assumes that we can all win if we work together and there is enough for everyone. Competitiveness is fine when it comes to the organization’s external competitors but has a decidedly negative impact when it is social competitiveness and winning at the expense of other team members.
Our own research at Hagberg Consulting Group makes this abundantly clear. Social competitiveness – people who feel the need to compete with their co-workers – is negatively correlated with openness to input, listening, building partnerships, building relationships, information sharing, and forthrightness. Not the profile of an effective team member!
Stack ranking is a procedure, popularized in the 1980s by GE’s CEO Jack Welch, of ranking employees according to a bell curve. In that system, the top 10% are designated as top performers, while the bottom 10%, seen as a drag on the organization’s effectiveness, are routinely let go. Stack ranking fosters internal competition of employee vs. employee as they strive for high marks, and it stifles innovation. “In a hyper-competitive workplace,” wrote Max Nilson in Business Insider, “where management is essentially asking employees to outperform the people sitting next to them, employees don't have an incentive to share ideas or collaborate.” People focus on their own performance, “rather than working together toward broader goals. And at its most extreme, employees may focus on preventing others from excelling.” After all, you might not want to help a fellow team member because you may be the one who gets fired if he does better than you. [“Why Stack Ranking Is A Terrible Way To Motivate Employees,” Max Nilson, Business Insider Nov. 15, 2013] No wonder people experienced it as a morale killer.
On the other hand, here are some suggestions for building a collaborative, cooperative environment:
- Strengthen relationships. It is important for the leader to continually look for ways to build cohesion and strengthen relationships and bonds between members. Whether it is a meeting whose primary focus is helping team members get to know each other in more depth, a team dinner once a month, or a planning off-site that includes activities that help members get together just for fun and socializing, can go a long way toward increasing team coherence. Also, beware of having such a rigorous and rigid agenda-focus in your meetings that you don’t leave any time for informal discussion and personal sharing. This may not always be possible or desirable, but should be built in whenever feasible.
- Encourage communication between team members. The team leader also needs to encourage communication between team members and avoid relying on the “hub and spoke” style, where communication is primarily one-on-one between the leader and individuals. That style is familiar and comfortable for independent-minded entrepreneurs, but it is not helpful for building teams or evolving solutions to complex problems that require communication and collaboration among various specialties. Encourage team members to develop deeper connections amongst themselves, so that decisions do not always revolve around you. (Why? Because if you are not available at crunch time, how will decisions be made?)
- Beware of silos. In rapidly growing organizations there is always a threat that organizational silos will develop, and teams will focus narrowly on their own agendas and priorities, even to the point of resenting or stereotyping “those people over in sales,” and so on. To counteract this tendency, you need to foster communication between teams, and organize regular meetings between them to coordinate efforts, develop mutual understanding, and learn to collaborate.
- Promote cross-functional teamwork. When silos do develop and people think primarily about their own team or functional agenda, they lose track of what others need and the challenges they may be facing. This mind-set can lead to a reluctance to communicate, coordinate, or cooperate, even to share information or resources with other individuals, departments or teams. As the leader, if you see this happening, let everyone know that you want every team member to be aware of, and sensitive to, not only the projects others are working on, but what they need in order to be most effective. When teams and team members are called upon to cooperate with other teams to work on certain problems and projects, you can make this collaboration more fruitful if you discuss with everyone involved areas where the teams need to work together, what each needs from the other team, and how they can partner most effectively.
- Organize cross-functional meetings . Interdependent teams should meet regularly to clarify mutual goals and roles, sort out ongoing issues and problems, create plans and solutions together, and support each other. Product and Engineering, for example, could meet once a month or even more often, to share what they are working on, what their priorities are, what problems they are facing, and coordinate their efforts. As the leader, help everyone understand what each team needs from the other(s), their problems and priorities, and encourage them to develop empathy rather than looking at the other group as “them”. Be careful to discourage any “us versus them” thinking or negative stereotyping of the other group.
- Encourage active participation in meetings.
Encourage team members to participate and openly share their ideas and perspectives. Do your best to get people involved. Facilitate dialogue between team members. Draw them out. “Maria, we haven’t heard from you on this new initiative. What do you think about it?” Or, “That’s a good idea. How can we build on it?”
- Reduce the fear factor.
Be sure your attitude and demeanor in meetings does not intimidate others, but makes them feel that their presence and their ideas are welcome and appreciated. On the other hand, some people may need to be motivated by the awareness that there will be consequences if they don’t deliver. So this is another area where a balance of leadership styles and approaches may be needed.
- Build a team culture of collaboration.
Starting with your own example, encourage team members to make a strong personal commitment to the success of other members, and not be focused entirely on their own achievements. This requires a spirit and expectation of collaboration and cooperation between team members and fostering a strong common identity, rather than an “us versus them” mentality.
- “How can I help with that?”
As team leader, a major part of your job is to find out what people need, where they are stuck, where they might need more resources, and facilitate the solution. Team members can follow your example, talk to each other about what they are working on, and ask, “How could I help you with that?” Often there is a way to contribute directly to someone else’s part of a project because of the diversity of backgrounds and expertise, but even if there is not, just letting others know you have their back and are available if they need you promotes a spirit of collegiality and mutual support. And don’t forget: on a team, each person’s achievements and successes are not just for the individual, but contribute to the success of the whole.
- Don’t avoid problems. Effective problem-solving and decision-making involves surfacing troublesome issues and bringing up differing views for consideration. When there are problems between the groups, don’t let them fester. Discuss what is and isn’t working and how the communication and collaboration can be improved. The leader needs to actively guide this process, to bring out the best ideas and insights.
- Re-assess your role
. Learn to see yourself not so much as “the boss” or “the decider” but rather as a facilitator of effective problem-solving and communication.
- Model collaborative behavior.
Getting to the core of an issue and making the right decision also requires the leader to model collaborative behavior, not an easy task for those who have largely been individual contributors, but an essential role to learn to play.
share this
Related Articles
Related Articles
One of the biggest dilemmas that founders face knowing when and why to bring in a Chief Operating Officer (COO) . Too early, and you risk creating bureaucracy before the business finds its footing. Too late, and the founder becomes a bottleneck, throttling growth and burning out teams. Get the wrong type of COO, and you’ll spark culture clashes or stifle innovation. I have had 4 COOs over my career. Their styles and capabilities were very different and the role I needed them to play differed dramatically based on the stage of the company. Some of them worked out beautifully and were the perfect complement to my founder tendencies and limitations. Some were a disaster. Here is what I learned. The COO is the most variable role in the C-suite. Some founders never hire one. Others go through three or four before finding the right fit. In many cases, the question isn’t if you need a COO—it’s what type of COO your company and your leadership style demand at this stage of growth. Let’s break this down. Why COOs Matter Founders are visionaries. They are idea machines, market spotters, and force-of-nature storytellers who rally talent and investors around a dream. But those same strengths often come paired with weaknesses: disorganization, impatience, lack of systems, and difficulty letting go of control. A strong COO is the counterweight. They turn vision into execution. They stabilize culture. They keep promises made to customers and investors. And, at the right time, they free the founder to do what only the founder can do—set direction, evangelize the mission, and keep the spark alive. But “COO” isn’t one job. It’s a category. And picking the wrong type is like forcing a square peg into a round hole. The Seven Archetypes of COOs 1. The Executor The backbone of day-to-day operations. They build systems, enforce discipline, and make the trains run on time. Best fit: Visionary founders who thrive on ideas but leave chaos in their wake. Stage: Early scaling, when the business needs process without killing momentum. Examples: Sheryl Sandberg at Facebook (balancing Zuckerberg’s vision), Gwynne Shotwell at SpaceX (stabilizing Musk’s whirlwind). 2. The Change Agent The fixer. Brought in when transformation is urgent—scaling fast, restructuring, or pulling out of crisis. Best fit: Founders who know the business has outgrown their own operational grip. Stage: Scaling into hypergrowth, or turnaround scenarios. Examples: Daniel Alegre at Activision Blizzard, leading cultural and operational overhaul. 3. The Mentor/Partner The grown-up in the room. A seasoned leader who steadies a first-time or young founder, often more coach than operator. Best fit: Visionary but inexperienced founders, often in the earliest stages of institutional growth. Stage: Transition from startup scrappiness to formal organization. Examples: Eric Schmidt at Google—while not COO by title, he played this role for Page and Brin. 4. The Heir Apparent The COO as CEO-in-waiting. They take on broad P&L responsibility, often shadowing the founder before succession. Best fit: Companies preparing for leadership transition. Stage: Later scaling into maturit Examples: Tim Cook at Apple before succeeding Steve Jobs. 5. The MVP Functionalist The specialist. A COO with deep expertise in one critical area—finance, product, supply chain, or sales. Best fit: Founders strong in vision but weak in a single domain essential to scaling. Stage: Startup to early scale. Examples: Prabir Adarkar at DoorDash, covering finance and operations. 6. The Complement to the CEO’s Gaps A tailor-made role. If the founder is a disorganized visionary, the COO is structured and disciplined. If the founder is technical but introverted, the COO is outward-facing and people-savvy. Best fit: Any founder aware enough to know their own blind spots. Stage: Anywhere, but especially scaling. Examples: Sandberg balancing Zuckerberg’s lack of operational rigor; Shotwell countering Musk’s volatility. 7. The Integrator/Hybrid The most complex type. They unify strategy, execution, culture, and talent at once—bridging across multiple functions. Best fit: Complex, multi-line businesses with global teams. Stage: Scaling into maturity. Examples: Angela Ahrendts at Burberry, integrating brand, culture, and operations before moving to Apple. Why Founder–COO Relationships Fail So Often If the COO role is so valuable, why do so many founder–COO relationships crash and burn? Boards are often gun-shy about hiring COOs because they’ve seen these partnerships implode. The reasons fall into several predictable buckets. 1. Lack of Role Clarity The fastest way to sabotage the relationship is leaving the COO’s job undefined. Who owns what decisions? Where does accountability lie? If the COO’s role overlaps with the founder’s, or isn’t communicated to the rest of the team, the COO quickly becomes either a glorified project manager or a powerless deputy. Both end badly. 2. Founder’s Inability to Let Go Many founders simply can’t let go. They want to approve every detail, revisit every decision, and undermine the very autonomy they hired the COO to exercise. A COO who feels second-guessed or constantly overruled either disengages or quits. 3. Misaligned Vision and Values Operational excellence isn’t enough if the COO doesn’t fully buy into the founder’s vision and cultural values. When the COO wants to optimize for stability while the founder is pushing disruption—or vice versa—the two end up pulling the company in opposite directions. 4. Trust and Emotional Reactivity Trust is fragile. If the founder is volatile under stress, or the COO isn’t skilled at navigating the founder’s personality, the relationship becomes brittle. Outbursts, defensiveness, or miscommunications erode psychological safety between them and ripple across the organization. 5. Succession Ambiguity and Power Tensions Is the COO being groomed as the future CEO—or not? Few questions create more tension. If expectations aren’t clarified up front, the COO may feel misled and the founder may feel threatened. Meanwhile, employees begin to compare the two and pick sides. Boards have seen this movie before, and it rarely ends well. 6. Unrealistic Expectations Founders and boards often expect the COO to “fix everything yesterday.” In reality, operational improvements take time—learning systems, culture, and people. When results don’t appear overnight, frustration builds. On the flip side, some COOs expect to make sweeping changes immediately, without respecting the founder’s legacy or the team’s tolerance for disruption. 7. Culture and Communication Breakdowns The founder and COO need structured ways to align—weekly check-ins, clear communication norms, and mechanisms to resolve disagreements. Without them, minor irritations accumulate into major grievances. Worse, the team sees open conflict at the top and begins to question who’s really in charge. 8. Identity and Ego Issues Let’s name the elephant in the room: many founders see hiring a COO as an admission of weakness. They sabotage the hire by bypassing the COO or contradicting them in front of the team. On the other side, ambitious COOs often chafe at being “Number Two.” If the relationship isn’t anchored in humility and respect, egos will clash. How Founders Can Prevent the Breakdown Knowing the pitfalls is only half the battle. Preventing them takes deliberate work: Define the COO’s mandate explicitly —what they own, what’s shared, and what stays with the CEO. Set up trust rituals early —regular one-on-one check-ins to surface tension before it festers. Align on vision and values —not just what you’re building, but how you’ll build it and why it matters. Clarify succession expectations —is this person a partner, a long-term No. 2, or a potential future CEO? Say it. Set realistic timelines —agree on milestones, but don’t expect magic overnight. Communicate clearly to the org —so employees understand who does what and aren’t caught in the crossfire. Hire for complementarity —choose a COO who fills your blind spots, not one who duplicates your strengths. The founder–COO relationship is like a marriage with the pressure of Wall Street, venture capital, and 200 employees watching. When it works, it’s transformative. When it doesn’t, it’s messy, public, and expensive. The Founder × Stage × COO Fit So how do you know when and which type of COO to bring in? Here’s the decision logic: Startup + Visionary Founder Needs an Executor or Mentor/Partner. Someone to turn chaos into motion without killing energy. Startup + Operator Founder May not need a COO yet. If they do, it’s usually a domain specialist (MVP Functionalist) to cover blind spots. Scaling + Visionary Founder Needs an Integrator or a Complement to gaps. Execution and people issues become bottlenecks. Scaling + Operator Founder May need a Change Agent or Heir Apparent. The role becomes about transformation or succession. Mature Company + Visionary CEO The COO role is succession-oriented (Heir Apparent) or complex integration (Hybrid). Mature Company + Operator CEO Sometimes no COO is needed; the CEO already runs operations. In other cases, the COO is simply the next CEO waiting in line. Takeaway Hiring a COO isn’t about “offloading work.” It’s about admitting what kind of company you’re really building, and what kind of leader you are. If you’re the spark but not the engine, you need an Executor. If you’re a force of change but leave wreckage behind, you need a Relationship-Builder complement. If you’re building for the long haul, sooner or later you need an Heir Apparent. The best founders aren’t the ones who try to do it all. They’re the ones who know when to step aside—just enough—to let someone else make the company stronger. Closing Thought In Founders Keepers, I often say: what got you here won’t get you there. The founder’s job is to create possibility. The COO’s job is to turn possibility into performance. The only real mistake is waiting until your company is already fraying before you decide which kind of COO you need. By then, the cost of waiting may be higher than you can afford.
The Founder’s Dilemma Founders are fountains of ideas. You see possibilities everywhere, you connect dots others can’t, and you can sell a vision with enough energy to light up a room. But there’s a problem: ideas don’t implement themselves. They need systems, people, and execution discipline. In my coaching of more than a hundred startup founders—and backed by data from 122 founder assessments—the same challenge comes up again and again: founders are world-class at generating ideas, but their companies stumble when those ideas aren’t translated into action. I have struggled with this tendency for my entire career. My creative ideas just keep bubbling up and my execution discipline and focus can’t keep up. I have the classic “shiny object” distraction problem shared by many founders. The irony? The very traits that made me a classic visionary evangelist—creativity, independence, impatience, and risk tolerance—are the same traits that made execution difficult. If you want your ideas to live beyond a brainstorming session, you must learn to do what feels unnatural: offload execution, delegate real authority, and empower others to carry your vision forward. Why Great Ideas Die Without Execution Most failed ideas don’t die because they weren’t brilliant. They die because: 1. The founder keeps ownership too long, trying to do everything personally instead of empowering others. 2. Delegation is fake, with tasks assigned but no real authority granted, leaving the founder still in control. 3. Priorities aren’t clear, so teams are overwhelmed by too many initiatives and unsure of what matters most. 4. Accountability is weak, with no consistent follow-up or consequences when commitments slip. 5. Founders love possibilities but resist discipline, avoiding the planning, sequencing, and focus execution requires. 6. Ideas are left open-ended, because founders generate endlessly but fail to converge on closure and completion. 7. Optimism turns unrealistic, as founders overestimate what’s possible and ignore what could go wrong. 8. Expectations aren’t communicated, leaving teams uncertain about roles, outcomes, and next steps. 9. They rush ahead without buy-in, moving too fast to bring others along and win their commitment. 10. They undervalue operators, failing to leverage managers of execution who can turn vision into systems. This is what I call the founder time bomb. Early success convinces you that your personal hustle is the engine of growth. But as the company scales, hustle becomes a bottleneck. Unless you shift, your best ideas will choke on lack of oxygen. Step 1: Translate Vision Into Tangible Priorities Your job as a founder isn’t to hand down a 37-slide vision deck and hope for the best. Your team needs clarity. That means breaking down your big idea into concrete, winnable battles. Set the “critical few” : Define 3–5 top priorities for the quarter. Outcome > activity : Don’t assign tasks, define the result (e.g., “Increase retention by 5%”). Overcommunicate : If you feel like you’re repeating yourself, you’re doing it right. One founder I coached changed his company trajectory by beginning every weekly meeting with just three priorities. The noise vanished. His team finally knew what mattered. Step 2: Practice Real Delegation, Not Fake Delegation Too many founders think delegation means assigning a task and then hovering over the person doing it. That’s not delegation—that’s micromanagement with extra steps. Real delegation means: Handing over ownership, not just chores. Giving the decision rights along with the responsibility. Accepting that “80% their way” may be better than “100% your way.” Here’s a phrase worth practicing: “You own this. You don’t need my approval.” Few sentences are harder for founders to say. Few sentences build more trust. Step 3: Build a Culture of Accountability Without Becoming a Tyrant Accountability is where many founders stumble. They either avoid conflict (hoping problems fix themselves) or they overreact when deadlines slip. Both extremes poison execution. Healthy accountability requires: Clear expectations : No hidden rules or shifting targets. Visible commitments : Public goals build peer pressure to deliver. Rhythms of review : Regular check-ins that aren’t nagging but structured. Consequences : Underperformance addressed quickly, not ignored. Accountability isn’t punishment—it’s support. It says, “I expect the best from you because I believe in you.” Step 4: Share Information Like Oxygen Execution thrives on information. Yet many founders hoard knowledge—sometimes out of habit, sometimes out of insecurity. Teams can’t execute if they don’t understand the why behind the what. Empowered teams need: Transparent dashboards : Everyone sees progress metrics. Context, not just orders : Explain reasoning, not just results. Accessible strategy docs : Kill the “founder black box.” When people understand the big picture, they stop running back to you for every decision. They start acting like owners. Step 5: Invest in Second-Line Leaders Scaling execution isn’t about having 50 great individual contributors—it’s about having 5 managers who can each lead 10 people effectively. Yet many founders neglect their managers, focusing instead on product or fundraising. Strong second-line leaders can: Translate your vision into plans. Coach their teams instead of doing the work themselves. Spot and develop talent below them. Your leverage point is not how many people you personally manage, but how many leaders you multiply. Step 6: Watch Out for Founder Autopilot Your instincts—boldness, independence, impatience—got you this far. But they can sabotage you at scale. I call this founder autopilot. It looks like: Jumping back into execution “just to speed things up.” Overloading the team with new initiatives before finishing the old ones. Cutting around your managers and making unilateral calls. The cure is self-awareness. Tools like 360 feedback and coaching help you notice when you’ve slipped back into heroic founder mode instead of scalable leader mode. Step 7: Celebrate Execution, Not Just Ideas Most founders glorify the spark of ideation but forget to recognize the grind of implementation. If you only celebrate creativity, you’ll get lots of brainstorming but little delivery. Shift the culture: Spotlight the team that launched, shipped, or solved—not just the one that dreamed. Tell stories of execution at all-hands meetings. Publicly recognize “builders,” not just “visionaries.” What you celebrate becomes what your team repeats. The Founder’s Evolution: From Genius to Builder of Builders The founder who can’t offload execution ends up as the bottleneck, exhausted and surrounded by frustrated employees. The founder who masters delegation and empowerment evolves into something much more powerful: a builder of builders. In my research, the difference between founders who scaled 10x and those who flatlined wasn’t idea quality. It was execution quality. The 10x founders learned to empower others, create accountability systems, and step back from doing everything themselves. The founder who shifts from “I’ll do it” to “I’ll ensure it gets done” makes the leap from fragile startup to durable company. Closing Thoughts Ideas ignite companies, but execution sustains them. If you want your vision to shape reality, you must resist the temptation to hold the reins too tightly. Translate vision into priorities. Delegate real authority. Build accountability and transparency. Develop leaders beneath you. And above all, celebrate execution as much as you celebrate ideation. That’s how founders ensure their ideas don’t die in the brainstorm stage but live on as products, services, and companies that change the world.
Every founder eventually faces a moment of reckoning. It doesn’t arrive with a clear announcement. It creeps in gradually, often disguised as small frustrations: projects slipping, team members complaining, or investors quietly losing confidence. And at the center of it all is a painful truth: The people who carried you through the chaos of the early days, the ones who slept on office couches, pulled all-nighters, and took pay cuts to bet on your dream—can no longer keep up. The company has grown. The stakes are higher. And the job has outgrown them. This is one of the hardest truths in entrepreneurship, and one most founders struggle to face. Instead of acting, they convince themselves: “She’ll grow into the role.” “He’s been with me since day one—I can’t let him go.” “Loyalty matters more than resumes.” But here’s the hard truth that separates founders who scale from those who stall: loyalty doesn’t scale. Competence does. The Startup Version of the Peter Principle The Peter Principle tells us that in large corporations, people rise to their level of incompetence. In startups, this principle plays out in hyper-speed. What made someone a hero in a five-person company, improvisation, raw hustle, and the willingness to do anything becomes a liability in a 50- or 500-person company. Think about the hacker who was indispensable in the garage. Brilliant at rapid problem-solving, he could patch servers at 3am and crank out features in a weekend. But leading a team of 50 engineers requires a totally different skill set: planning, delegation, recruiting, building processes. His improvisation becomes chaos. His genius turns into bottlenecks. Or the co-founder who thrived on energy and vision. In the early days, charisma and instinct were enough. But scaling requires a discipline around metrics, process, and accountability. What once looked like bold leadership now looks like reckless improvisation. Even the beloved “culture carrier”—the person who organized team offsites, boosted morale, and made the company feel like family—can become a roadblock. When decisions stack up and complexity explodes, loyalty and good vibes aren’t enough. What the company needs is a strategic operator, not just a glue person. This is what I call team obsolescence : the brutal, recurring reality that many early employees get outgrown by the job. The Head vs. Heart Conflict Why do founders struggle so much with this? It’s not because they’re blind. It’s because they’re human. The tension isn’t just intellectual—it’s emotional. Guilt and Indebtedness : Early employees bet on you before anyone else did. They turned down safer jobs, endured lower salaries, and staked their careers on your vision. Cutting them loose feels like betrayal. Psychologists call this the principle of reciprocity: the human drive to repay sacrifices. Founders feel they owe these people more than just a paycheck. Fear of Losing the Magic : Founders often worry that bringing in “outsiders” will ruin the scrappy, intimate culture that made the company special. This is a classic case of in-group bias. We trust the familiar, even when it’s no longer fit for purpose. Many founders cling to the idea that culture is fragile and must be protected from “corporate types.” Conflict Avoidance : Few people relish difficult conversations. Founders, especially those wired to inspire rather than confront, often procrastinate on hard personnel decisions. This is loss aversion at work: the immediate pain of conflict feels worse than the long-term risk of stagnation. Blind Loyalty Bias : Founders frequently overestimate an early employee’s ability to “grow into” a scaled role. This is the halo effect: past loyalty and past performance cast a glow that blinds you to current shortcomings. This is the founder’s head-versus-heart struggle. Rationally, you know the company has outgrown someone. Emotionally, you can’t let go. A Founder’s Story: When Friendship Meets Reality One founder I coached built his company with a close college friend. This friend was the first engineer, working nights and weekends to bring the product alive. He coded nonstop, patched outages at all hours, and was the reason the company survived its early chaos. By Series B, the company had 80 employees. Suddenly the role wasn’t about heroic coding; it was about systems, processes, and leading dozens of engineers. The founder knew his friend was drowning. Deadlines slipped. Senior engineers were frustrated. Investors raised eyebrows. But he kept saying, “He’s been with me since the beginning. I owe him.” Eventually, he faced reality. With coaching, he had the hard conversation: “You’re invaluable to this company, but the role has outgrown your strengths. Let’s find a place where you can thrive without being set up to fail.” The friend transitioned into a specialist role where his brilliance could shine without the weight of leadership. The company brought in a seasoned VP of Engineering. Painful as it was, the decision saved both the company and the friendship. This is the essence of true leadership: honoring loyalty without letting it sink the ship. The High Price of Avoidance The costs of avoidance aren’t abstract—they’re devastating. Execution Bottlenecks : An underqualified leader slows everything down. Projects drag, opportunities slip, and customers churn. It’s like trying to scale a skyscraper on a foundation built for a cottage. A-Players Walk : The best people won’t stay if forced to work under weak leaders. They leave, taking ambition and excellence with them. The company becomes a place where mediocrity thrives. Culture Corrodes : Protecting underperformers sends a loud signal: politics matter more than performance. Over time, resentment builds. High performers check out. Trust erodes. Investor Mistrust : Boards and investors notice quickly when execution falters. They start asking tough questions—not just about your team, but about your judgment as a founder. Founder Burnout : Perhaps the greatest cost: you, the founder, pick up the slack. Instead of scaling your vision, you spend nights fixing problems others should solve. Exhaustion sets in. Your energy, the one resource no one else can replace, gets depleted. What feels like an act of loyalty today can quietly strangle the company’s future. Another Case: The Culture Carrier I once worked with a founder whose operations manager was beloved by the team. She organized payroll, ordered office supplies, and planned offsites. She was the glue. But when the company hit 150 employees, the demands shifted. The job required scalable systems, compliance expertise, and strategic HR planning. She was still running things on spreadsheets and memory. People loved her, but they were increasingly frustrated with the chaos. The founder feared that replacing her would “destroy the culture.” Eventually, he hired a Head of People. But instead of cutting her out, he redeployed her into an employee experience role. She continued to be the cultural heartbeat of the company while freeing leadership to professionalize operations. The lesson: redeployment, when done thoughtfully, preserves loyalty without sacrificing competence. What Great Founders Do Differently The best founders I’ve studied don’t avoid this problem. They approach it with discipline and compassion. 1. They Diagnose Early They don’t wait until the crisis is obvious. They ask themselves, “If I were hiring for this role today, at this stage, would I choose this person?” If the answer is no, they don’t kick the can—they act. 2. They Separate Potential from Plateau Some people can grow. With coaching, training, and mentorship, they can rise to the next level. Others plateau quickly. Great founders don’t confuse the two. They invest in growth where it’s possible and cut losses where it’s not. 3. They Redeploy with Respect This isn’t about discarding people. The best founders move loyal employees into roles where their strengths shine—special projects, advisory positions, cultural leadership. Redeployment preserves respect and institutional knowledge while freeing the company to grow. 4. They Upgrade Before Crisis They don’t wait until the engine fails. They hire seasoned executives early, before execution falters. And they communicate clearly: every stage requires different skills. Honoring the past doesn’t mean guaranteeing the future. Leadership with Compassion The real test of a founder isn’t whether you can attract capital or inspire a team. It’s whether you can make the painful calls that protect the company’s future while respecting the people who got you started. True leadership is not about cold detachment. It’s about balancing head and heart: Gratitude means honoring contributions, celebrating sacrifices, and rewarding loyalty. Governance means making clear-eyed decisions about whether someone can perform at the next level. When founders confuse the two, they put sentiment ahead of survival. But when they balance both, they create companies that endure. One founder I know addresses this directly with his team: “Every stage requires new skills. Some of us will grow into them. Others will contribute in different ways. What matters is building a company that lasts.” That’s leadership with compassion—telling the truth while honoring the past. Why This Matters More Than Ever The startup environment today is more unforgiving than ever. Capital is tighter. Investors are quicker to act. The margin for error is smaller. In this climate, founders who delay tough calls are at greater risk than ever. Execution failures and cultural corrosion are spotted instantly by boards and competitors. The founders who scale are those who balance loyalty with realism—who act before the cracks widen into chasms. The Founder’s Real Test It’s easy to celebrate early wins and bask in loyalty. The real test is whether you can honor that loyalty without being trapped by it. Because here’s the paradox: The only way to truly honor early sacrifices is to build a company that endures. And that means making the call when loyalty becomes liability. Call to Action If you’re a founder facing this dilemma, don’t wait for the board to force your hand. Don’t wait for top talent to walk or investors to lose confidence. Confront it now. Diagnose honestly. Redeploy with respect. Upgrade before crisis. Be compassionate. Be decisive. Be clear-eyed. Your team—and your company—will thank you later.
