Author: Aamiya Marshall

I believe one of the greatest challenges entrepreneurs face is learning how to grow their businesses without compromising the mission, values, and culture that inspired them to start. Although rapid expansion can be exciting, I would rather experience slower, sustainable growth than expand too quickly and risk weakening the foundation of my business. However, I am not opposed to rapid growth if the opportunity genuinely strengthens the company and supports its long-term purpose.

Wasserman discusses the challenges founders face as their startups mature, particularly when the skills required to launch a business differ from those needed to manage its growth. His discussion of Lew Cirne and Wily Technology stood out to me because it demonstrates how a founder can successfully build a company yet eventually need someone else to lead its next stage (Wasserman, 2013). I believe entrepreneurs must recognize that being the founder does not necessarily mean being the most qualified person to serve as CEO forever.

If EmpowerMe Life eventually grows into a large organization, I would be willing to step away from daily operations and delegate responsibilities to experienced leaders. I would even consider appointing another CEO if that individual possessed the expertise needed to take the business further. Regardless of my title, I would always remain its founder, and my ultimate goal would be to build something capable of succeeding beyond my individual leadership.

Organizations often experience different developmental stages, each introducing new management challenges (Greiner, 1998). This reinforces my belief that a company’s leadership and organizational structure must evolve as it grows. For EmpowerMe Life, I would maintain an updated, functional organizational chart with qualified individuals responsible for specific departments, performance expectations, and organizational outcomes. Delegation would allow me to maintain accountability without attempting to oversee every responsibility personally.

Similarly it’s important to identify talented employees, develop strategic partnerships, maintain focus, and professionalize business operations during the transition from startup to growth-stage company (Solomon, 2013) . I particularly agree with the emphasis on maintaining focus. Expanding into additional markets or introducing new services should never come at the expense of delivering quality services to existing customers.

Before pursuing significant expansion, I would want to see consistency across several areas, especially revenue, customer satisfaction, measurable results, dependable employees, and strong partnerships. These indicators would help me determine whether the company has the resources, systems, and support necessary to manage additional growth. I would also want personal peace about the timing rather than feeling pressured to expand simply because an opportunity becomes available.

Ultimately, I believe successful scaling requires entrepreneurs to recognize when their businesses have outgrown their original structures and leadership approaches. My goal would not simply be to create a large company, but to build a sustainable organization that continues fulfilling its mission long after I have stepped away from daily leadership.

References

Greiner, L. E. (1998). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business Review, 76(3), 55–68. https://hbr.org/1998/05/evolution-and-revolution-as-organizations-grow

Solomon, G. (2013, February 11). Transitioning from a startup to growth-stage company. Fortune. https://fortune.com/2013/02/11/transitioning-from-a-startup-to-growth-stage-company/

Wasserman, N. (2013). The founder’s dilemmas: Anticipating and avoiding the pitfalls that can sink a startup. Princeton University Press.

When considering investors for a startup, I believe the biggest financial offer is not necessarily the most valuable one. Although securing funding is important, I would prioritize investors who genuinely believe in my mission and can contribute to the business beyond their financial investment. To me, choosing investors should be a strategic decision based on the company’s current needs, long-term goals, and the value each investor brings to the table.

Wasserman explains that investors can provide financial, human, and social capital, but different investors also introduce different risks. His discussion of Ockham Technologies stood out to me because the founders chose an investor offering less money and less favorable financial terms in exchange for valuable industry experience, credibility, and guidance (Wasserman, 2013). This reflects how I would approach investment opportunities, especially during the early stages of my business.

Initially, I would rather accept less funding from an investor who genuinely supports my vision than receive substantially more from someone whose interests do not align with my mission. As the business becomes more established, I would be open to larger investments from individuals who may not completely share my vision but still recognize the company’s value and growth potential. However, I would remain cautious about granting decision-making authority to investors whose priorities could compromise the business’s purpose.

Research found that entrepreneurs were willing to accept lower company valuations to secure investments from reputable venture capitalists, reinforcing the importance of looking beyond financial capital (Hsu, 2004). This suggests that an investor’s reputation, connections, and experience can be valuable enough to influence financing decisions. Personally, I would prioritize investors who could provide mentorship, industry knowledge, and access to future partnerships rather than simply contribute money.

I also believe timing is essential. Before pursuing significant outside investment, I would prefer to establish my business, demonstrate measurable results, develop a loyal customer base, and build a strong support system. My goal would be to start small and grow sustainably, planting solid roots that provide a firm foundation for future expansion. Wasserman emphasizes the importance of developing negotiating leverage before approaching investors, which reinforces my preference for establishing credibility rather than rushing into funding agreements.

Nevertheless, outside investment introduces risks that cannot be ignored. It was found that venture capital is associated with organizational professionalization, including the hiring of experienced executives, but also with a greater likelihood of replacing founder-CEOs (Hellmann & Puri, 2002). While I am willing to relinquish some control to support growth, I would carefully consider investment terms affecting decisions about the company’s mission, leadership, and future direction.

Ultimately, I want investors who contribute to building something greater than what I could accomplish independently. Money can accelerate growth, but I believe the right relationships, timing, and shared commitment to the business’s purpose are what make that growth worthwhile.

References

Hellmann, T., & Puri, M. (2002). Venture capital and the professionalization of start-up firms: Empirical evidence. The Journal of Finance, 57(1), 169–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6261.00419

Hsu, D. H. (2004). What do entrepreneurs pay for venture capital affiliation? The Journal of Finance, 59(4), 1805–1844. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2004.00680.x

Wasserman, N. (2013). The founder’s dilemmas: Anticipating and avoiding the pitfalls that can sink a startup. Princeton University Press.

Recruiting talented employees is important, but I believe keeping them can be an even greater challenge. Competitive compensation is important, especially when someone consistently produces great results, but money alone cannot make up for a poor work environment. At the end of the day, employees are human beings, and their time and energy are valuable. I believe A-players should feel valued, appreciated, and rewarded while also being able to receive the fruits of their labor.

Herrenkohl explains that hiring A-players is not enough; leaders must also give those employees reasons to remain with the organization (Herrenkohl, 2010). He emphasizes investing time in top performers, giving them responsibility, communicating the future of the business, and showing them where they fit into that future. I agree because I would prioritize recognition, advancement opportunities, flexibility, work-life balance, meaningful work, competitive compensation, and strong leadership. If an employee has proven through both performance and character that they are trustworthy, I also believe they should receive greater autonomy. High performers still need leadership and accountability, but they do not necessarily need to be closely micromanaged.

Recognition is especially important to me. If an employee will quickly be addressed when they make a mistake or underperform, that same level of attention—if not more—should be given when they perform well. Research supports this idea. Gallup and Workhuman followed nearly 3,500 employees and found that employees who received high-quality recognition were 45% less likely to have left their organization two years later (Yi, 2024).

Retention may be even more challenging with today’s workforce because expectations surrounding work are changing. I do not necessarily believe that younger generations are less dependable than previous generations; however, Millennials and Gen Z may be more willing to reconsider employment that does not align with what they value. A survey of more than 23,000 Gen Z and Millenial respondents found that financial security, meaning, well-being, learning, and work-life balance are important considerations in their careers (Deloitte, 2025). The survey also found that 44% of Gen Z and 45% of Millennials had left a role they felt lacked purpose. Older generations may have been more accustomed to remaining with the same employer for decades, sometimes despite having fewer benefits or less flexibility. Today’s employers cannot simply assume that their best employees will stay.

If I had an A-player, I would make sure they were well taken care of through competitive pay, earned flexibility, recognition, advancement, and meaningful opportunities. However, I would also respect their decision if it was genuinely time for them to move on. Ultimately, retaining A-players is not about controlling them. It is about creating a workplace where great employees continue to have reasons to choose to stay.

References

Deloitte. (2025). 2025 Gen Z and millennial survey: Gen Zs and millennials at work: Pursuing a balance of money, meaning, and well-being. Deloitte Insights.https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/talent/2025-gen-z-millennial-survey.html

Herrenkohl, E. (2010). How to hire A-players: Finding the top people for your team—even if you don’t have a recruiting department. John Wiley & Sons.

Yi, R. (2024, September 18). Employee retention depends on getting recognition right. Gallup. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/650174/employee-retention-depends-getting-recognition-right.aspx?trk=article-ssr-frontend-pulse_little-text-block

I believe one of the biggest challenges of hiring for a startup is recognizing that the person or skill set a business needs today may not be exactly what it needs several years from now. For me, this means hiring should evolve with the business. I would initially take more of a generalist approach, while still bringing in specialists for areas that are especially important to the stability and growth of the company.

Wasserman explains that early-stage startups often benefit from generalists because they can move between responsibilities as the company’s strategy, structure, and needs change (Wasserman, 2013).  As the startup matures, however, specialized knowledge becomes increasingly valuable. This approach makes sense to me. Early employees should be comfortable wearing multiple hats and helping wherever necessary. However, I would still want specialists in critical areas, such as accounting and financial analysis, to help ensure the business remains financially healthy and continues growing.

Research supports the broad nature of early startup roles. Due to startups typically beginning with limited resources and less established roles and routines, employees often perform a wider range of activities than employees in larger organizations (Sorenson et al., 2021). As responsibilities continually change, startup employees can essentially develop into generalists. This reinforces why flexibility would be something I value heavily in my earliest hires.

Growth can also create the difficult decision of what to do when an early employee no longer fits the demands of their position. Wasserman discusses how some employees successfully grow from “player” to “coach,” while others struggle as their responsibilities expand (Wasserman, 2013). Personally, I would not immediately replace someone who had been loyal and contributed to building the company. I would first invest in training and give that person an opportunity to grow. If they still could not meet the demands of the position, I would try to move them into another role that better fits their strengths and bring in someone with the necessary experience. This is also why I would be cautious about handing out major titles early. Titles should be earned and clearly necessary rather than used simply to attract someone.

I would also be open to hiring friends or family, but being related to me would never be the qualification. I would need to know their work ethic, experience, abilities, and genuine commitment to the mission. Family involvement can create both benefits and challenges and emphasize the importance of performance criteria when selecting family members for key positions (Firfiray et al., 2018). For example, I would love to have my parents contribute to a future business because they possess relevant skills. My mother has years of administrative and educational leadership experience, while my father is an artist whose abilities could contribute to areas such as marketing.

Ultimately, I believe successful startup hiring requires flexibility. The goal is not simply to hire good people, but to hire the right people for the company’s current stage while preparing for what the business will need next.

References

Firfiray, S., Cruz, C., Neacsu, I., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2018). Is nepotism so bad for family firms? A socioemotional wealth approach. Human Resource Management Review, 28(1), 83–97. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.05.008

Sorenson, O., Dahl, M. S., Canales, R., & Burton, M. D. (2021). Do startup employees earn more in the long run? Organization Science, 32(3), 587–604. doi:10.1287/orsc.2020.1371

Wasserman, N. (2013). The founder’s dilemmas: Anticipating and avoiding the pitfalls that can sink a startup. Princeton University Press.

When hiring employees, experience and technical qualifications are important, but I do not believe they tell the entire story of what someone can bring to an organization. Personally, I would rather hire someone who may not know everything yet but demonstrates strong character, the right attitude, a willingness to learn, and potential for growth than someone with impressive technical qualifications who lacks those qualities. Some skills can be taught through training and experience, while qualities connected to a person’s character and personality can be much more difficult to develop.

Rather than limiting recruiting to people who already perfectly match a traditional job profile, Herrenkohl encourages employers to consider overlooked talent pools (Herrenkohl, 2010). For example, the chapter discusses teachers with strong communication and people skills, college students who can be developed through internships, and individuals whose previous jobs have provided transferable abilities. I think this is important because an A-player may not always look like one on paper at first.

I can relate to this personally as a college graduate entering the workforce. Job searching can be difficult when employers request several years of experience for positions, even when a candidate may have significant potential for growth. A lack of years in a particular position does not necessarily mean someone lacks the ability to learn, contribute, and eventually excel in that position. Current hiring trends appear to recognize this distinction. The National Association of Colleges and Employers reports that nearly 70% of employers responding to its Job Outlook 2026 survey use skills-based hiring. Employers also emphasized students’ ability to connect skills developed through coursework and extracurricular and experiential learning to the workplace (NACE, 2025).

Research also demonstrates why characteristics beyond technical qualifications deserve consideration. A meta-analysis found that conscientiousness was consistently related to job-performance criteria across the occupational groups they studied (Barrick & Mount’s, 1991). Openness to experience was also associated with training proficiency. These findings reinforce the idea that characteristics related to how someone approaches work and learning can matter alongside existing technical abilities.

Ultimately, I believe employers should consider not only what applicants have already accomplished, but also what they have the potential to accomplish. Experience can be gained, procedures can be taught, and technical skills can be developed. When employers recognize transferable skills, character, willingness to learn, and potential, they may discover an A-player they otherwise would have overlooked.

References

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x

Herrenkohl, E. (2010). How to hire A-players: Finding the top people for your team—even if you don’t have a recruiting department. John Wiley & Sons.

National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2025). Job outlook 2026. https://www.naceweb.org/research/reports/job-outlook/2026

Founding a business does not automatically mean that the founder is the best person for every leadership position within it. While founders bring the original vision, passion, and often significant knowledge to their businesses, I believe roles should ultimately be assigned based on strengths, experience, and what is best for the growth of the company. Leadership decisions should not be driven by ego or status, but by who can currently bring the most value to achieving the mission and vision of the business.

In The Founder’s Dilemmas, Wasserman explains that assigning titles and decision-making authority can become a major source of tension among cofounders (Wasserman, 2013). The CEO title is particularly significant because it carries both symbolic meaning and actual authority. Wasserman cautions against automatically making the person who developed the original idea the CEO. Although that individual may possess the passion and vision necessary to launch the company, another founder may have skills and experience that make them better equipped to lead it. I believe recognizing this requires maturity. If someone else is better suited for a responsibility, allowing that person to take the role is not a loss for the founder. It can actually be a wise decision to relinquish some control for the growth and ultimate benefit of the business.

Research on founder-CEO succession reinforces this idea. In a study of 202 Internet startups, Wasserman found that accomplishing important milestones, including completing product development and securing additional financing, could actually increase the likelihood of founder-CEO succession (Wasserman, 2003). This demonstrates how the leadership needs of a startup can evolve as the business grows. The person who was best equipped to begin the journey may not always be the person best equipped for every stage that follows.

Clearly defining roles is also important. I do not believe role clarity will prevent all conflict because disagreements are inevitable when people work together. However, clarity can establish expectations and reduce unnecessary overlap. In a meta-analysis of 74 independent correlations involving 11,698 participants, it was found that role ambiguity was negatively related to job performance (Tubre & Collins, 2000). This supports the importance of people understanding their responsibilities, even if clearly defined roles cannot eliminate every disagreement.

Ultimately, founders should be willing to ask where they can add the most value rather than which title gives them the most authority. Ego should not determine who leads what. The needs of the business, the abilities of the individuals involved, and the overall mission should guide those decisions. Sometimes strong leadership means stepping forward, but other times it means having enough wisdom to recognize when someone else is better equipped to lead in a particular area.

References

Tubre, T. C., & Collins, J. M. (2000). Jackson and Schuler (1985) revisited: A meta-analysis of the relationships between role ambiguity, role conflict, and job performance. Journal of Management, 26(1), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(99)00035-5

Wasserman, N. (2003). Founder-CEO succession and the paradox of entrepreneurial success. Organization Science, 14(2), 149–172. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.2.149.14995

Wasserman, N. (2013). The founder’s dilemmas: Anticipating and avoiding the pitfalls that can sink a startup. Princeton University Press.

As the founder of a business, I believe one of your most important responsibilities is setting the tone for the organization. The founder establishes the vision and purpose, keeps goals at the forefront, and reminds the team what everyone is ultimately working toward. However, being the founder does not mean having to control every aspect of the business. As a company grows, I believe founders have to become comfortable relinquishing some control and trusting the people they have intentionally placed around them.

In How to Hire A-Players, Eric Herrenkohl emphasizes that entrepreneurs who want to build substantial businesses must move away from trying to control everything themselves (Herrenkohl, 2010). Instead, founders should recruit A-players and allow those individuals to use their abilities to help build the business. Herrenkohl also compares effective business leaders to successful coaches: the best coaches recruit talented players, incorporate their individual abilities into the team’s system, and ultimately build a winning team. I believe this is an important distinction because a founder’s responsibility is not to be the entire team but to build, guide, and lead one.

At the same time, relinquishing control does not mean disappearing into the background. I think of leadership similarly to a shepherd leading sheep. A shepherd must be among the sheep to properly guide them. Likewise, founders should remain involved, accessible, and known by their teams. Employees should understand the founder’s vision and know that their leader is available when direction is needed. However, once capable people have been placed in their respective roles, they also need room to use their strengths without being micromanaged.

Research supports this balance. A study of new venture top management teams found that both leadership from the formal leader and shared leadership among team members contributed to understanding new venture performance (Ensley et al., 2006). To me, this demonstrates the value of a founder providing direction while also allowing other capable people to exercise leadership.

Building the right team also requires being strategic about where talent is placed. Organizations should identify positions that have the greatest impact on executing strategy and concentrate talent and resources accordingly (Huselid et al., 2005). This complements Herrenkohl’s argument that leaders should stop simply filling positions and instead view each hire as another piece of the puzzle in building a great, valuable team.

My mom, Bethel Smith, has always said, “Teamwork is the key to great success.” I believe that applies perfectly to entrepreneurship. A founder may begin with the original vision, but growing that vision requires other people. The founder’s role is to keep the mission alive, establish expectations, and guide the team while trusting others to contribute their expertise. Strong founders do not have to control everything to remain effective leaders. Sometimes leadership means building an A-team, giving them room to succeed, and being present enough to keep everyone moving toward the same destination.

References

Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance of startups. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.002

Herrenkohl, E. (2010). How to hire A-players: Finding the top people for your team—even if you don’t have a recruiting department. John Wiley & Sons.

Huselid, M. A., Beatty, R. W., & Becker, B. E. (2005). “A players” or “A positions”? The strategic logic of workforce management. Harvard Business Review, 83(12), 110–117, 154. PubMed record

When building a team, it may seem natural to surround yourself with people who have similar backgrounds, experiences, and skills. There are certainly benefits to doing so. People who are similar may communicate more easily, establish trust faster, and experience less conflict early on. However, I believe too much similarity can eventually become a weakness. I would rather build a team where everyone shares the same mission but brings different strengths to accomplishing it. Instead of everyone’s abilities overlapping, their individual strengths can enhance one another and create a more well-rounded and stable team.

In The Founder’s Dilemmas, Wasserman explains that founders naturally gravitate toward people who are similar to themselves, a tendency known as homophily (Wasserman, 2013). Homogeneous founding teams can benefit from faster formation, easier communication, and greater initial trust. However, Wasserman also identifies an important long-term risk: when founders have similar functional backgrounds, their human capital can overlap. As a result, the team may have several people who are strong in the same areas while lacking critical skills in others. He contrasts this with teams whose members possess complementary skills and networks that better match the needs of the startup.

This is where I believe variety adds more substance to a team. Different people can look at the same problem and contribute completely different solutions based on their expertise and experiences. Research on entrepreneurial teams found that demographic diversity within new venture teams was positively associated with sales levels and sales growth, supporting the idea (Chandler & Lyon, 2001). Their findings also revealed an important trade-off: teams with greater diversity experienced higher turnover. This reinforces Wasserman’s point that diversity can strengthen a team while simultaneously making team dynamics more challenging.

The answer, therefore, may not simply be to make a team as different as possible. Wasserman makes an important distinction between diversity in areas such as skills, experience, and professional networks and compatibility in “soft” factors such as values, commitment, work styles, and risk tolerance. Similarly, diverse perspectives alone do not guarantee stronger performance; diverse teams need psychological safety so members can communicate openly, contribute their perspectives, and work through differences effectively (Bresman & Edmondson, 2022).

Ultimately, I believe an effective founding team should be united in purpose without being identical in contribution. If everyone brings the same strengths, important weaknesses may remain uncovered. I would rather have people at the table who approach the mission differently but complement one another along the way. To me, the goal is not for every team member to bring the same thing to the table…it is for everyone to bring something valuable that makes the entire table stronger!

References

Bresman, H., & Edmondson, A. C. (2022, March 17). Research: To excel, diverse teams need psychological safety. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2022/03/research-to-excel-diverse-teams-need-psychological-safety

Chandler, G. N., & Lyon, D. W. (2001). Entrepreneurial teams in new ventures: Composition, turnover and performance. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2001(1). https://doi.org/10.5465/apbpp.2001.6132988

Wasserman, N. (2013). The founder’s dilemmas: Anticipating and avoiding the pitfalls that can sink a startup. Princeton University Press.

When building a business, financial capital is undoubtedly important, but I believe social capital can take an entrepreneur further than financial capital alone. Money provides the resources necessary to start and grow a business, but relationships can provide opportunities, knowledge, credibility, guidance, and even access to that money in the first place. For me, networking is of the utmost importance because entrepreneurship is not only about what you have; sometimes, it is also about who you know and who knows and trusts you.

In The Founder’s Dilemmas, Wasserman describes social capital as the durable network of social and professional relationships founders can use to identify and access resources (Wasserman, 2013). His examples demonstrate how professional contacts, former coworkers, classmates, professors, advisors, and other relationships can help entrepreneurs find employees, customers, cofounders, and investors. Wasserman also explains that accumulating one form of capital can create a “virtuous cycle,” as founders with greater social capital can attract additional human and financial capital. This is one reason I view social capital almost like having a large village supporting the business. The more people who know about your business, believe in it, and can vouch for it, the more opportunities that network may create.

Research supports this connection between relationships and financial resources. Dudley (2021) found that social capital increased young firms’ access to outside financing and reduced their reliance on owner equity. The study describes social capital as functioning like “social collateral” in financing arrangements. This demonstrates that social and financial capital do not necessarily operate independently; one can help create access to the other. Additionally, a meta-analysis of 61 independent samples found a positive relationship between entrepreneurs’ social capital and small-firm performance, with network diversity having the strongest positive effect (Stam et al., 2014).

I have also seen the importance of networking while entering the workforce myself. Finding good, higher-paying opportunities is not always based solely on what is written on a résumé. A professional connection, mentor, or someone willing to recommend you can sometimes open a door that your experience alone could not. I believe the same principle applies to entrepreneurship. Networking can connect a founder to someone with experience they lack, an investor they could not otherwise reach, or a mentor who can help them make better use of the financial resources they already have.

Ultimately, entrepreneurs need both social and financial capital. However, if I had to prioritize building one, I would begin with social capital. Financial capital can fund a business, but a strong network can help an entrepreneur find funding, use resources wisely, reach new people, and uncover opportunities they may never have encountered alone. Money is valuable, but having a village of knowledgeable and trustworthy people supporting the vision can be invaluable.

References

Dudley, E. (2021). Social capital and entrepreneurial financing choice. Journal of Corporate Finance, 70, 102068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2021.102068

Stam, W., Arzlanian, S., & Elfring, T. (2014). Social capital of entrepreneurs and small firm performance: A meta-analysis of contextual and methodological moderators. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 152–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.01.002

Wasserman, N. (2013). The founder’s dilemmas: Anticipating and avoiding the pitfalls that can sink a startup. Princeton University Press.