John Gauch 2024-12-12 John Gauch 2024-12-12

When Top Performance Becomes a Hiding Place

Top performers may be the most underutilized people on a startup team. It’s not because they lack drive, but because they’re succeeding enough to avoid change. This post explores how success can quietly become a plateau. For founders and “A Players” alike, it’s a call to rethink performance, question assumptions, and create space for growth — even when no one’s demanding it.

Hey there - I'm a hands-on startup fractional COO. I serve as an operating partner to founders supporting growth and operations. Over 20+ years, I have worked on dozens of startups (Synervoz, FreshAhead, Axiom, Spartan, IAN), helping build one high-impact business to exceed $100M in revenue and a second to nearly reach that rare milestone (so far!).

Introduction

We all know people who execute quality work blindingly fast. They're reliable. Smart. They anticipate problems and solve them, just like that. They're the people you'd clone if you could.

Savvy startup founders, obviously, want to hire people like this, and many founders fall into this category themselves. I'm not a huge fan of the phrase "A Player" (for reasons I'll perhaps explain in a future blog post), but that's who we are talking about. What's less obvious is that these people may be the most underutilized assets in the company.

It's not because they aren't working hard or delivering value. It's because they're performing so well that no one's asking them to grow — including themselves. Or when someone does challenge them, they brush it off.

When Success Becomes a Ceiling

Here's the dynamic: A Players get stuck. They've figured out how to succeed at their job. Knock it out of the park even. Teammates agree. Because they are delivering, they don't feel any pressure to change.

These high performers plateau — quietly.

We see this in professional sports, too. A top athlete is performing among the best in their pack. They could be better — their mechanics are excellent but could be tweaked, their mindset becomes fragile in certain situations, their recovery is only passable for their level — but they don't see or want to see the areas where they could improve.

In business (and sports), plateauing doesn't just cost the individual. It limits the evolution of the entire team. These top performers are not failing, but they're not stretching either. Over time, this will slow the business down compared to what’s possible.

One Example: Stress Equals Effectiveness

I often see one specific problem among startup founders. They believe they're underperforming if they're not maxed out — doing it all. They think they're doing it wrong if they're not feeling overwhelming stress. “This is what it's supposed to be like for a founder,” they say to themselves.

It's a seductive idea, but a myth.

They are correct about one thing: being a founder is challenging and taxing. There will be periods when founders need to max themselves out, for sure. They're incorrect that this is the best way to operate all of the time if building a successful startup is the objective.

The psychological model known as the Yerkes-Dodson Curve suggests we perform at our peak when there is an optimal level of arousal. Too little and you're bored. Too much and you lose focus. In the middle, you're challenged and most effective. Research into "flow" states supports this idea, showing that people achieve peak cognitive function not under excessive stress, but in moments of deep, focused engagement.

Excessive stress narrows attention, impairs working memory, and reduces cognitive flexibility — critical skills in complex, fast-changing environments like startups. Chronic stress also makes it harder to shift perspectives, which means founders under pressure may miss opportunities, resist feedback, or stick with decisions longer than they should. (Sources: McEwen & Sapolsky (1995); Arnsten (2009); Crafting Calm in Chaos – Softhouse.)

Many startup founders operate past the point of peak performance, but like other high performers, they're effective enough not to question it. They would be more productive if they dialed the stress level down. They fail to make this leap and are less effective as a result.

What does better look like?

Fewer fire drills.
Fewer dropped balls.
More delegation.
More automation.
More white space.
More reflection.

However, getting to this point requires a mindset shift — especially if you’re holding onto the myth that only frazzled founders succeed.

Help "A Players" Grow Again

There's often a big unlock possible for top performers.

A Players tend to be insulated by their results. They assume they're fine. They get praise, not coaching. They're rewarded for consistency, not trying something new and being imperfect.

Ongoing personal development and leadership development are critical for every organization. If you're a startup founder, ask about your top contributors:

Who is crushing it but hasn't leveled up in the last 6 to 12 months?
What friction points do I see on the team in their wake?
How do they react and do if you give them feedback?

Founders, it’s also worth asking those questions about yourself. Consider where you’ve stopped being curious, and examine those areas. They’ll give you clues about where you can grow as a leader, contributor, and colleague. Some of the things you’re sure you “know” may be precisely the places where you’re stuck.

Conclusion

The risk isn't that top performers fail. It's that they succeed enough to avoid change. The world's best teams don't just reward consistency. They demand growth, especially from the people already doing well.

World-class teams are made up of individuals willing to learn even when no one asks them to. Those are true superstars. Scaling a startup to $100M revenue or more is incredibly difficult. Give yourself every possible advantage.

It's always great to meet other startup operators. Read more about me here, and please reach out for a chat anytime!

I wrote this blog post with the help of a customized GPT from OpenAI.

John Gauch 2024-10-14 John Gauch 2024-10-14

Deadlocked? Use “Forced Empathy” to Resolve Conflicts and Strengthen Your Startup Team

Startup environments are high-stakes. Team deadlocks can undermine progress and morale. Make the wrong decision, and that could be the end of it all. This post discusses “forced empathy,” an active perspective-taking technique to break deadlocks by encouraging team members to advocate for each other’s viewpoints, fostering trust and collaboration, and guiding teams toward sounder decisionmaking.

Image of two frustrated people talking tied to the blog topic of startup conflicts — Photo by Timur Weber from Pexels.

Welcome - I’m a hands-on fractional COO (Feldspar, Synervoz), sales coach (Microsoft), and mentor (Alumni Ventures, High Alpha). Over 20+ years, I have applied my growth and operations experience to help dozens of startups (Axiom, IAN, Spartan). I’m always excited to discuss thoughts and ideas to help founders grow and build their businesses.

Introduction

In the high-pressure startup environment, decision-making is often a team sport. But what happens when team members are at an impasse? Finding common ground can feel impossible when emotions run high and positions become entrenched. This type of deadlock doesn’t just slow progress—it can increase tension and erode trust, undermining the psychological safety needed for an organization to perform at its best.

Fortunately, there’s a simple and powerful tool from the world of mediation to help teams break through these roadblocks: perspective-taking. By asking each party in a dispute to advocate for the position of the other party, startup teams can reduce emotional strain, foster empathy, and make better decisions. By building this organizational muscle, you’ll increase the odds of building and sustaining a successful startup.

Key Takeaways

Psychological biases, such as confirmation bias and blindspot bias, can entrench team members in their positions, leading to deadlock.
Perspective-taking, or “forced empathy,” helps break deadlocks by encouraging team members to engage with and appreciate opposing viewpoints.
Anyone can follow a step-by-step process to bring perspective-taking to team conflicts, setting the stage for open dialogue to co-create a better path forward.
We can overcome issues that keep perspective-taking from being effective by watching out for and acting on these challenges.

Why Deadlocks Occur: Understanding Psychological Biases

In fast-paced startup environments, the pressure to deliver is intense. I’ve written elsewhere about understanding and keeping the business’s customer-driven purpose in mind.

That is always the company’s true North.

When team members put the customer first, organizations avoid many issues (inter-departmental competition, for example). Suppose team members are taking positions that are clearly inconsistent with this goal. That’s an easy case: Leaders can flag and correct the misalignment. There are going to be other cases, however, where there are multiple competing ideas aligned with providing customer value. So an easy fix may not be available when a conflict or impasse surfaces.

People might feel that they’re right and lose sight of the possibility that might not be true. They might be absolutely correct or flat-out wrong. There could be multiple equally good approaches. Or they may be partially correct. Maybe their ideas could be additive to a different approach. Whatever the case, developing a hardened view that there’s one clear best way, theirs, will be a problem if someone holds onto a conflicting viewpoint just as tightly.

One problem with this is that the best problem-solving entails evaluating several options before committing to a path forward. Someone trying to steamroll others with one idea undermines that process.

It may help to be aware of the biases--psychological phenomena--that get us into these binds. Take confirmation bias. This is when individuals seek information supporting their beliefs while dismissing evidence contradicting them. Cognitive dissonance is the discomfort we feel when holding conflicting ideas. It’s a challenge for human beings to be open to competing possibilities. Another significant barrier is blindspot bias—the tendency to recognize biases in others but not oneself. Blindspot bias also leads individuals to view their perspective as more rational or objective than others, making it harder to resolve a deadlock.

So what happens if we can’t disrupt these tendencies and open the door to a constructive dialogue that begins with considering and thoughtfully evaluating different alternatives before deciding on a course of action?

The Power of Perspective-Taking in Breaking Deadlocks

When biases and strong convictions lead to deadlock, perspective-taking can be a powerful strategy to get unstuck. Unlike passive empathy, perspective-taking is an active process where one team member is asked to “step into the shoes” of another—to fully engage in their viewpoint by attempting to solve the problem or argue the case from the other’s perspective. This method, also called “forced empathy,” encourages team members to temporarily set aside their positions and genuinely explore the opposing side.

This approach is effective for several reasons.

First, the participant gains an understanding of where the other person is coming from and may gain a greater appreciation for why the other person is feeling the way they are. Second, perspective-taking may reveal overlapping interests. Third, they may discover value in aspects of the other’s position independent of their perspective.

With this recognition, an adversarial relationship may soften up. When each person gains a deeper understanding of the other person’s motivation, and they deepen their connection through the dialog, it becomes easier to appreciate and discuss their respective ideas.

Beyond resolving an immediate issue, perspective-taking builds trust and open-mindedness within the team. The process becomes a habit, making future deadlocks less frequent and fostering a team culture that embraces diverse viewpoints as a source of strength rather than conflict. One strong characteristic of someone who frequently operates in this way is curiosity. When they learn about a position that differs from theirs, they don’t get defensive; they get curious and want to learn more about the other person and how that person arrived at their position.

How to Implement Active Perspective-Taking in Team Conflicts

A forced empathy exercise will be beneficial in a deadlock situation where two people are really dug into their positions. Tapping into perspective-taking to resolve the impasse isn’t rocket science, but there are a few key steps. Here’s a four-step guide startup leaders can apply to shift to a more creative, constructive conversation.

Set the Stage for Dialogue

This is a big one. If there’s strong trust and rapport on the team, remind the participants of this. Emphasize that we’re all in this together and here to challenge and support one another in the pursuit of shared business goals.

If it isn’t a high-trust environment, remind everyone of what they have in common. Set a positive, collaborative tone. Remind team members that the goal is not to “win” the discussion but to explore perspectives and potential paths forward. Encourage all to be genuinely curious and open.

Have Each Party Actively Advocate for the Other’s Viewpoint

The exercise is straightforward. Ask Participant Number One (“Kelsey”) to represent and advance Participant Number Two’s (“Rafael’s”) case. Kelsey needs to engage actively with Rafael to be sure she understands him, his ideas, and his arguments. If the impasse were about allocating budget to Rafael’s department, for example, Kelsey needs to try to solve the problem Rafael feels he is facing. Kelsey must fully present Rafael’s case. Another way to think about this is that Rafael is Kelsey’s “client.”

After you do one round of this, switch roles and repeat.

Identify Overlaps and New Insights

The exercise will help to build rapport between the two participants, and it may be enough to break the logjam and get the conversation flowing. A forced empathy exercise often leads to the realization that the other person’s view isn’t just “opposition” but has value. The intervention may lead to brand new insights or a greater appreciation for concepts on the table.

If the team struggles to move forward after the intervention, you can add more structure to the follow-up. Once each side has actively advocated for the other’s viewpoint, ask both parties to identify areas of overlap or alignment. This could include shared goals, customer-centric objectives, or underlying motivations that both support. Ask team members to highlight elements of the other perspective they hadn’t considered. Then, encourage team members to discuss these insights, gained from the exercise.

Co-Create a Solution

With biases softened and common ground identified, the team is primed to work together on a solution for moving forward. The solution could take any form. It might be one of the original points of view, a modified version of one of them, or an entirely new, third approach. Encourage team members to engage in this step creatively. This step builds toward an actionable solution by considering alternatives through a cohesive team dynamic.

Common Challenges in Active Perspective-Taking—and How to Overcome Them

While active perspective-taking can be a powerful tool for breaking deadlocks, it isn’t always easy, especially in high-stakes startup environments where strong opinions and emotions can run high. Here are three common challenges in applying perspective-taking and strategies to overcome them.

Challenge 1: Resistance to Considering the Other Viewpoint

Sometimes, team members may feel reluctant to fully engage with the other’s viewpoint. Tap into the reluctant teammates’ competitive spirit and intellectual drive. Define “winning” as vigorously representing their counterpart. Challenge the unwilling participant to see if they can find the gold in their colleague’s position and get it across to the team.

Challenge 2: High Emotions and Tension

When emotions run high, productive dialogue might feel impossible. If tensions have escalated to a boiling point, consider a “cooling-off” period. Don’t even try this exercise when the heat is too high. Revisit the issue once emotions have subsided and folks have had time to reflect. I’ve seen people come around during a timeout, avoiding the need for an intervention. People sometimes re-engage more productively when they’ve had the chance to reset.

Challenge 3: When Deadlock Persists

Even when team members engage in good faith, entrenched positions may not shift. People may tell themselves, “This is all fine, but I’m certain I’m correct.” Pausing to do some homework may help. It’s okay to theorize what approach might be best, but if there’s tangible data you can get to help evaluate proposed approaches, go get it. What does what you learned mean, and how does it help you pick your path?

If there isn’t tangible data you can easily access, all is not lost. Consider additional ways to acquire tangible information to help determine the superior approach. For example, can you design and run small experiments to gather data informing what option might be better?

One founder I worked with had a very stressful Board meeting the other day. Two groups had formed with different theories for the company strategy about what market to target first. This had implications for product development and the company’s fundraising approach.

After a lot of talk about a future nobody could predict or know with certainty, it became clear that there might be small tests that the company could run to get some data offering a glimpse of the potential future. They would arrange five prospective customer meetings and test different assumptions tied to the two competing strategies to see if what they learned tipped the scales to one side or the other.

That might provide enough information to choose a route, or they could follow it up with another test.

Conclusion

Implementing active perspective-taking as a standard approach to resolving conflicts can have lasting, positive effects on your startup. When team members regularly engage in “forced empathy” exercises, they’re better equipped to approach future disagreements as opportunities for growth rather than battles to be won. Beyond resolving the immediate issue at hand, perspective-taking builds empathy, curiosity, and openness.

Encourage your team to try perspective-taking the next time they face a deadlock, especially in high-stakes conversations. By consistently applying this approach, you’ll build a team that embraces diverse perspectives and prioritizes creative solutions that align with your startup’s mission. Ultimately, a team that practices active perspective-taking will be more adaptable, resilient, and effective in navigating the inevitable challenges every startup faces.

I love to meet like-minded startup leaders. Read more about me here, and please reach out for a chat.

I wrote this blog post with the help of a customized GPT from OpenAI.