Article

Building Startup Teams: The Challenge for Entrepreneurs

May 12, 2023

The Building Startup Teams: The Challenge for Entrepreneurs


Leadership is not a solo performance, but a partnership between leaders and their followers. No matter how visionary, charismatic, or competent a leader is, he or she will not get very far without followers willing to work hard and enthusiastically to implement the vision and create a great, even world-changing organization. The most important way this works in today’s world, in business as well as in almost every public sphere, is through teams. 


Why Teams Are Important


  • According to an internal Google study (Project Aristotle), “The team is the molecular unit where real production happens, where innovative ideas are conceived and tested, and where employees experience most of their work.” 
  • Skill in forming and leading teams is essential in leading any organization. It demands all of the competencies of an effective leader. 
  • Teams are more than just a group of individual contributors working together. Teams utilize the experience, background, and expertise of a diverse group of people, each bringing his or her own contribution to the table.
  • Individuals possess varied talents and skills, different strengths and weaknesses. What one person can’t do well, somebody else may excel at. Bringing them together on a team helps to augment the skills and negate the weaknesses – as the saying goes, “the whole is greater than the sum of the parts,” or as leadership guru Ken Blanchard said, “None of us is as smart as all of us”.
  • Teams serve the leader’s decision-making process by putting forward multiple points of view, helping to avoid bias based on narrow or limited vision.
  • Effective teams have a shared purpose, interdependency, and skill in communicating and working together. This creates a shared identity and spirit of cooperation and collaboration that allows the team to work more effectively together.
  • One of the benefits of teamwork is that it divides up the tasks to be done and increases the chance of success. On a very basic level, a team divides up the tasks and responsibilities needed to get something accomplished, whether short-term problem-solving or a large-scale, long-term project. Most projects today are too complex for one individual to handle. If the workload is shared intelligently, allocating tasks according to people’s strengths, the work gets done more efficiently and effectively. That translates to higher productivity.
  • Working collaboratively in a group people can give and receive feedback and support to each other. 
    Collaboration can help solve difficult problems. Brainstorming in a team based in trust provides a perfect opportunity to surface ideas and bring up creative ways of doing things.
  • Teams unify the energy and intelligence of individuals behind a common goal.


The Critical Importance of Teamwork for Startups


Teamwork is important for any organization, but it is especially critical for a startup. Our research shows that as companies scale, different elements of leadership differentiate great leaders from the rest of the pack. Looking at all companies – small, medium and large – as one group, the qualities and behaviors of the Inspirational Role Model form the most important differentiator characterizing great leaders. However, for early stage companies Facilitating Teamwork stands out as the key to great leadership. 


Why is this the case? In a small, scaling company the leader is often involved in everything. If this continues, the leader ends up creating a self-limiting organization that is too leader centric. He or she is involved in the details of too many things, tries to control too many decisions, and becomes a bottleneck. Such a leader has not figured out how to gain leverage by working through others. Micromanagement could become an issue. This style can dramatically impede the organization’s ability to scale.


Those leaders who learn to work through others by building high-performing teams stand out. They have learned to share leadership with strong function heads who balance their weaknesses and bring domain expertise to important decisions. They have learned that the best decisions often emerge from intense and productive dialogue that utilizes the perspectives and information provided by a diverse team of empowered experts who balance any biases the leader might have. 


This type of leader gets the most out of the team by utilizing a motivating style that makes team members feel like partners with a shared sense of ownership in the team’s decisions and actions, rather than depending on fear and intimidation to get compliance and conformity. They have learned to gel a group of individuals into a cohesive team focused on a shared direction and acting in a coordinated and collaborative manner. For these and many other reasons that will become apparent, startup leaders stand out who have the ability and know-how to get the most out their team.


The Challenge for Entrepreneurs


The entrepreneurial leader needs a genuine and strong belief that the synergy of teamwork is powerful and real. They must make the transition to a different view of their role, as the facilitator of teamwork, who greases the rails to get the most out of the team. This attitude can’t be faked. They must really believe that better-quality decisions will result from utilizing the diverse views and expertise of team members – that together we can solve problems more effectively than any one of us alone. 


This is especially important knowledge for entrepreneurs because, as our research suggests, many entrepreneurs, particularly tech entrepreneurs, are naturally independent loners who have strong needs for autonomy. Too often, they “don’t play well with others.” They tend to be non-conformists who resist restrictions on their freedom. Taking the time to get buy-in to their ideas and dealing with messy, emotional resistance doesn’t seem worth the effort. Their natural tendency is to go off to the mountain and talk to God and come down with the tablets. Making decisions by themselves is their default mode. They can be proudly – and stubbornly – self-reliant.


When they become leaders, their tendency is to trust their own judgment first and foremost. They aim to persuade people rather than engaging in open dialogue and getting all the facts and perspectives on the table. They try to control meetings and decisions, engage in micromanagement, and utilize a hub-and-spoke style of managing subordinates. Their long-standing pattern of independence keeps them from getting the benefits of teamwork and synergistic decision-making.


What they’re doing is trying to manage the team as a group of individual contributors whom they can control more easily. This translates into holding meetings one-on-one with Individuals rather than the whole team, giving individuals goals and following up with them privately. Secretly, they don’t really like group meetings and have little tolerance for open disagreement with their ideas. After all, in the past, they’ve done their best, most creative and productive work by themselves. They are skeptical whether group problem-solving and decision-making or strategic planning are going to add value.

 

Many tech entrepreneurs are very smart, but their IQs are higher than their EQs. In other words, their Emotional Intelligence and Social Intelligence need to be developed. They can rely on their intellect, see patterns, learn quickly and develop penetrating insights into problems, provided that the problems don’t require deep insight into people’s motivations and feelings or reading their impact on others. When dealing with team members they may lack empathy, tact, courtesy or sensitivity. They often damage relationships by trying to manage the organization as if it were a machine. 


Just because they may be able to persuade investors or paint an inspiring vision to promote the interests of the company, doesn’t mean they have a nuanced understanding of how people work. In general, they are task and results-oriented rather than people-oriented and are often quite unaware of the individual personality differences and group dynamics that impact a team. They get so focused on what they are trying to accomplish that they don’t see how their behavior may hurt feelings or intimidate people. In short: Social astuteness is not their strong suit. 

 

Both experience and research tell us that this style can make it difficult to create an effective, smooth-running team. It’s not enough to have a common goal. It also takes patience, perseverance, and attention to social dynamics. Because independent-minded entrepreneurs easily get frustrated with group decision-making and the need to work closely and build consensus with team members, they can become a roadblock to the creativity and effective decision making that teamwork can foster. 


A related challenge for entrepreneurs – as it is for all leaders – is the need to balance empathy, trust, empowerment of team members and a generally supportive approach, with challenging team members and demanding that they do their best work and produce results. As the leader, you need to honor the imperative to deliver results while at the same time sustaining the awareness that you need to work through your people, so it’s vital to build and maintain good relationships. 

 

share this

Related Articles

Related Articles

Why Successful Founders Win—and Others Crash and Burn
By Rich Hagberg June 9, 2025
Startup founders represent the ultimate paradox: celebrated for their innovative brilliance yet notoriously susceptible to failure. In reality, the difference between astronomical success and dismal failure boils down to a surprisingly consistent set of behaviors and personality traits. Drawing from extensive 360 feedback studies, personality assessments, and deep insights from Founders Keepers, we've unraveled exactly what separates winners from losers in the startup world. Myth-busting: Genius Jerks Rarely Prevail A common myth persists that successful founders must be narcissistic, domineering, and abrasive—the stereotypical "genius jerk." Yet, our rigorous analysis of data from 122 founders, comparing the top performers (at least 10X returns) with bottom performers (zero returns), decisively shatters this myth. Successful founders, contrary to popular belief, rarely succeed because of egocentric ruthlessness. Instead, they thrive due to their extraordinary adaptability, relationship-building skills, disciplined execution, and deep personal grounding. Meanwhile, unsuccessful founders often implode because of their rigidity, isolation, impulsivity, and inability to truly lead teams. Adaptability: The Endless Pursuit of Product-Market Fit Successful founders understand one critical truth: product-market fit isn't a finish line; it’s a continuous process. They show an exceptional ability to: Remain open to input, eagerly soliciting and integrating team feedback. Effectively manage resistance, empathetically addressing team concerns. Skillfully create buy-in, building commitment through transparency and genuine engagement. In contrast, unsuccessful founders typically fail due to rigidity. They stubbornly anchor themselves to outdated strategies, ignore valuable feedback, and react defensively to challenges, eventually becoming roadblocks in their own companies. Relationship Building: From Loners to Leaders A pivotal distinction lies in the ability to work effectively through others. Successful founders consistently excel in empowering their teams. They: Delegate effectively, granting autonomy while clearly defining expectations. Maintain trust through consistent behavior, integrity, and transparency. Develop robust emotional intelligence, adeptly managing conflict and strengthening team cohesion. Unsuccessful founders, on the other hand, struggle profoundly with delegation. Their chronic micromanagement erodes trust and morale, creating environments of fear and resentment. They often isolate themselves, failing to build genuine relationships, thus missing critical insights and innovations their teams could provide. Execution: Discipline Over Charisma Execution—arguably the most underrated pillar of startup leadership—truly separates winners from losers. Successful founders meticulously: Set clear, measurable, and achievable goals. Follow through relentlessly, holding themselves and others accountable. Create robust systems and processes to scale effectively. Conversely, unsuccessful founders typically suffer from chronic disorganization and impulsivity. Their inability to prioritize, constant pivots without strategic clarity, and poor follow-through generate chaos and stifle growth. Personal Grounding: Stability Amidst Chaos Perhaps most counterintuitively, successful founders exhibit deep personal grounding—a trait seldom highlighted in sensational startup narratives. They: Demonstrate emotional resilience, remaining composed under extreme stress. Exhibit patience, tolerating ambiguity and uncertainty with grace. Maintain optimistic yet realistic perspectives, avoiding destructive cycles of anxiety or panic. Unsuccessful founders, however, often spiral under pressure. Their volatility and emotional reactivity exacerbate crises, leading to poor decision-making and destructive interpersonal dynamics. Self-Awareness: The Hidden Driver of Success Underpinning all these traits is profound self-awareness—arguably the most critical competency of all. Successful founders consistently seek self-improvement, humbly recognizing their weaknesses and proactively addressing them. They actively solicit honest feedback, never fearing the vulnerability required for growth. Unsuccessful founders, conversely, often display a tragic lack of self-awareness. Their denial of shortcomings, defensiveness to feedback, and unwillingness to evolve ultimately doom their startups. Real-World Wisdom: Voices from the Trenches Beyond the data, the human stories captured in 360 feedback illustrate these differences vividly: Successful founders receive praise like, “He constantly solicits input, adapts swiftly, and builds deep trust. His humility makes everyone want to follow him.” Unsuccessful founders, by contrast, earn harsh critiques: “He ignores input, reacts defensively, and insists on controlling every detail. The team is disengaged and demoralized.” These narratives underscore the simple but powerful truth that the best founders aren't isolated geniuses—they’re skilled leaders who build environments where everyone can thrive. The Path Forward: Turning Insights into Action If you're a founder, investor, or leader within the startup ecosystem, confront these truths head-on. Assess yourself and your organization rigorously: Are you truly adaptable, or merely superficially agile? Are you empowering your team, or stifling their potential? Are you executing with discipline, or flailing with chaos? Are you grounded emotionally, or reactive and volatile? Are you genuinely self-aware, or defensively delusional? Final Thoughts Ultimately, founder success isn’t about flashy charisma or ruthless ambition. It’s about a disciplined commitment to growth—both personal and organizational. Embrace adaptability, deepen your self-awareness, and master the art of leadership grounded in trust and integrity. This is not merely good advice—it’s the proven difference between a startup’s spectacular success and its avoidable failure.  What traits do you see defining successful and unsuccessful founders in your experience? Let's discuss!
Why Do So Many Founders Cross Ethical Lines? A Guide for Investors
By Rich Hagberg May 9, 2025
We’ve all seen the headlines: visionary founders, celebrated one day, indicted for fraud the next. Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos, Sam Bankman-Fried of FTX, Trevor Milton of Nikola—each a cautionary tale. But why does this keep happening? More importantly, how can investors and venture capitalists spot the red flags before disaster strikes? After decades coaching startup founders and executives, and through intensive psychological profiling research in my book, Founders Keepers, it’s clear that the qualities which make founders extraordinary can also lead them into ethical peril. Ambition Gone Rogue Ambition is the engine of innovation, but when unchecked, it can spiral into something destructive. Elizabeth Holmes, once hailed as the next Steve Jobs, turned ambition into deception, sacrificing integrity for the illusion of success. Her willingness to misrepresent Theranos's technology eventually led to fraud convictions and a 11-year prison sentence. Similarly, Trevor Milton fabricated demonstrations of Nikola’s hydrogen-powered trucks, deceiving investors and regulators alike. Ambition that isn’t tempered by reality becomes toxic, pushing founders to prioritize appearances over substance. Narcissism and the Cult of Personality A striking number of fraudulent founders exhibit narcissistic traits. Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is disturbingly common among indicted entrepreneurs like Holmes, Adam Neumann, and Billy McFarland. These individuals have inflated self-worth, entitlement, and a troubling lack of empathy—traits that enable them to manipulate investors, employees, and markets. Adam Neumann’s charismatic leadership at WeWork masked a self-serving agenda. He leased his own properties to WeWork and indulged in extravagances funded by investor capital. His eventual downfall underscores a critical point: charisma and confidence, unchecked by accountability, can devastate companies. Pressure, Risk, and Rationalization Founders operate in pressure cookers. Investor demands, market competition, and internal expectations can distort ethical boundaries. Under such strain, founders rationalize questionable decisions—initially minor, then increasingly severe. Sam Bankman-Fried’s FTX saga exemplifies this slippery slope. Praised for his effective altruism, he secretly diverted customer funds into his own hedge fund, creating one of history’s largest financial implosions. Under extreme pressure to perform, ethical lines blurred into oblivion. The Dark Triad and Founder Psychology Research identifies a psychological pattern—the Dark Triad: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Founders exhibiting these traits manipulate, charm, and dominate others effortlessly. Their moral compasses malfunction, viewing ethics as mere obstacles. Martin Shkreli of Turing Pharmaceuticals raised drug prices mercilessly, justified as smart business. He ultimately faced securities fraud charges. This combination of manipulative charm, moral disengagement, and ruthless pragmatism frequently ends in corporate ruin. Red Flags Investors Can’t Ignore VCs and investors must vigilantly recognize signals of potential ethical crises: Accountability Gaps: Founders who deflect blame, resist feedback, or evade responsibility when faced with failures. Deceptive Fluency: Founders who remain intentionally vague, changing narratives to fit different audiences, lack transparency, and dodge specifics. Weak Governance: Companies lacking robust financial controls, passive boards, or weak compliance protocols enable founder misconduct. Excessive Charm: Overly charismatic leaders who evade scrutiny, foster cult-like devotion, and dismiss ethical concerns as trivial. Case Study: When Good Intentions Go Bad Consider Charlie Javice the Frank founder. Desperate to sell her startup, she fabricated millions of fake users, deceiving JPMorgan into a $175 million acquisition. Ambition, pressure, and opportunity collided disastrously, underscoring that even well-intentioned founders can fall if ethical vigilance wanes. Prevention through Awareness and Systems To mitigate these risks, investors must foster cultures of accountability. This means: Rigorous Due Diligence: Deep vetting of founder histories, not just their pitch decks. Transparent Governance: Enforcing independent oversight, clear reporting, and stringent ethical guidelines. Balanced Teams: Encouraging founders to build leadership teams empowered to challenge decisions. Healthy skepticism, combined with robust systems, creates a strong firewall against unethical behavior. Redemption and Self-Awareness Not all troubled founders are irredeemable. Many need interventions—coaching, accountability partners, and structured feedback—to prevent ethical slippage. Self-awareness is key. Founders who reflect on their blind spots and acknowledge limitations have a far better prognosis. Investing Wisely Means Looking Deeper The stark truth for investors is this: brilliance without integrity is dangerous. Investing isn't merely betting on ideas; it's assessing character. The cost of ignoring red flags is staggering, not just financially, but reputationally and ethically. Ask yourself one simple question when evaluating founders: If they weren't successful, would their behaviors still seem acceptable? The answer reveals everything. The line between visionary and fraudster is thin. Vigilance, skepticism, and structured accountability are critical tools in protecting your investments—and ensuring the next headline isn't about your portfolio. 
A painting of a man in a lotus position with a plane in the background.
By Richard Fagan February 27, 2025
Founders live in a world of chaos. It’s exhilarating, intense, and downright terrifying. You’re constantly shifting between the thrill of new ideas and the crushing weight of responsibility. Every decision feels like a life-or-death moment for your company, and the stress is unrelenting. Yet, amid this madness, there’s one thing that determines whether you’ll thrive or crash and burn: personal grounding.
ALL ARTICLES

STAY UP TO DATE

GET PATH'S LATEST

Receive bi-weekly updates from the church, and get a heads up on upcoming events.

Contact Us

A close up of a man wearing a beanie and a grey shirt
A black and white logo that says `` beloved believe ''
A woman is sitting on the ground playing a guitar.