Article
Getting The Right People On The Bus
September 6, 2020
Factors That Distinguish Effective Team Members
Building the senior team is critical to the organization’s success and an important part of the leader’s job. But often, the criteria for selecting team members and the process for recruiting, interviewing, selecting, and onboarding are flawed or haphazard. Hiring decisions that are made with too great a sense of urgency can lead to disaster.
Today, the competition for top talent is intense. Chances are that you will have to balance the need to put someone in place with your desire to hire the best. Until the organization has a reputation/brand, and financial resources, it may be difficult to attract top talent. The competitive hiring market also doesn’t allow you to have “A” players in every position, although that may be desirable. However, there are certain things to look for that will give you a better chance at hiring successful team members.
Having too narrow a model of the kind of person you prefer, whether that be academic pedigree, experience at a well-known successful company, or a particular type of intellectual or interpersonal style, can be a trap. Some companies lean toward hiring people who are highly intelligent, while others have a preference for people with good interpersonal skills. One of my corporate clients over-indexed for hiring people who made a good first impression and had good interpersonal skills. They ended up hiring talent whose need to be liked was greater than their ability to execute and get results, and who also wanted to avoid conflict! Personally, I had to learn that people I resonated with on the level of ideas were not always the right fit for a job that demanded attention to details and execution.
So, what should you look for when choosing talent and/or constructing your own executive team? Through extensive research (explained in their book, When Teams Work Best)
Frank LaFasto and Carl Larson identified six factors that distinguish effective from ineffective team members. They are:
1. Experience
: Practical knowledge of the area or function, grasp of technical capabilities and needs, breadth and depth of experience and a record of success that is relevant to the organization’s major objectives.
2. Problem solving ability
: One of the functions of a team is to solve problems, so an effective team member must have the ability to identify and clarify issues, understanding the relevant facts and their implications. He or she must be able to stay focused, make decisions, and proactively solve problems.
3. Openness:
To get the most out of your team as a problem-solving group, you need people who are willing and able to say what’s on their minds and openly express their point of view, including having the courage to disagree with the leader and bring up issues that need to be resolved.As the leader, you need the courage to listen to, and honestly consider, ideas and strategies that differ from your own. This will create an environment conducive to an open exchange of ideas.
4. Personal Style:
The most effective team members inspire others with their positive energy and attitude. They have an infectious enthusiasm about the work and a likeable, friendly, cooperative style which makes everyone feel motivated and comfortable. People who are negative, combative, critical, and pessimistic do not help team morale. Some people who have strong technical and analytical skills can be intellectually aggressive, highly skeptical and critical of others without having awareness of the negative impact of these tendencies on their relationships.
5. Supportiveness:
A team needs people who have the motivation, and the capacity, to put the good of the team above their own individual ambitions. On an effective, high-achieving team, people are supportive of each other. They share a desire and willingness to help each other succeed, and express this through mutual encouragement, a willingness to pitch in and help other team members overcome obstacles, and by putting the team’s goals above any individual agenda. Put simply, they know how to be there for each other. They are sensitive, considerate, and easy to work with.
Some people have a hard time being supportive team players. They are self-centered, focused on their own needs, agenda, and career. Some are socially competitive and need to win and be right. Some are simply determined to get their way and will use intimidation to get it. Many people are so personally ambitious and focused on their own narcissistic agenda that they are unable to be helpful and supportive of others.
6. Action orientation:
It’s important that team members have a bias for action. People who talk about things but don’t do anything much are not the ones you need on your team. You want members on your team who are willing to take initiative, and who get things done, individuals who have a desire to set and achieve goals. By their example and speech, they encourage others to take action. In the interest of getting results, they are quite willing to experiment and try a different approach. This is important on all teams, but perhaps especially in a small company where the fuse is burning, you’ve got too much to do, and the money always seems to be running out.
Good To Great: Getting The Right People On The Bus
Leaders are ultimately responsible for getting the right people on the bus. An important perspective on team building comes from Jim Collins, author of Good to Great, Built to Last and other influential books. In an example that has since become famous, he compares a company to a bus, and the leader to the bus driver.
You are a bus driver. The bus, your company, is at a standstill, and it’s your job to get it going. You have to decide where you're going, how you're going to get there, and who's going with you. Most people assume that great bus drivers (read: business leaders) immediately start the journey by announcing to the people on the bus where they're going—by setting a new direction or by articulating a fresh corporate vision. On the contrary, Collins' research showed that leaders of companies that go from good to great start not with “where” but with “who.” They start by getting the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and the right people in the right seats.
One of the most important factors in creating a highly successful team is to have the right people. “Put ‘who’ ahead of strategy, ‘who’ ahead of tactics, ‘who’ ahead of technology, ‘who’ ahead of business ideas – ‘who’ ahead of everything!”
And as discussed above in the context of the LaFasto and Larson research, the people you want to gather around you, to put on your bus, are those who are both capable and inclined to put the good of the organization ahead of their personal goals, people who are not self-centered individualists who put their own career ahead of the good of the organization.
According to Collins’ research, “Level 5 leaders,” his highest rank of best leaders, “channel their ego needs away from themselves and into the larger goal of building a great company. It’s not that Level 5 leaders have no ego or self-interest. Indeed, they are incredibly ambitious–but their ambition is first and foremost for the institution, not themselves.” In other words, “We found that for leaders to make something great, their ambition has to be for the greatness of the work and the company, rather than for themselves.” .
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.
