Why great ideas don't need giant teams from day 1
I’ve seen the same costly mistake repeated by engineering and product leaders: overstaffing a vision before validating it. It’s a mistake we easily spot in others, yet often justify in ourselves.
It always starts with a compelling, grandiose idea. And let’s be clear: there’s nothing wrong with vision. The mistake is the jump from “this idea is great” to “therefore, we must hire multiple teams to build it immediately.”
The consequences write themselves. Within months, you have talented people without clear purpose, overstaffed departments straining coordination, and, ultimately, the sad reality of layoffs. Growth for growth’s sake is a hollow victory.
I once worked with a C-level executive whose LinkedIn profile proudly stated: “Grew z department from x to y people.” On paper, it looked impressive. In reality, it was a mess. We had a crowd of talented people with no coherent direction, no validated roadmap, and no product vision to channel their energy. It was as boring and demoralizing as it sounds.
This is why I believe our core responsibility as leaders is to make the right call on when to scale. And since I don’t have a crystal ball, I’ve become fiercely critical of my own excitement. My antidote is a bias toward validation.
My approach is simple:
Start small. Before any big hiring efforts, I motivate us to talk to users and potential customers. The goal is to build a scrappy first version, a “good enough” prototype and find a handful of pilot users for brutal, early feedback.
Check the data. After building the small prototype, let’s track and watch the data closely. How many users are using our product? what’s their feedback? what else can we do (beyond engineering) to promote this new product? Marketing, sales, anything else?
Embrace chaos. At this stage, process is usually the enemy. Feedback loops must be incredibly short, allowing you to pivot or persevere with speed. If the idea seems to need 20 people, I start with the 5 I have to prove it deserves the other 15.
Own the decision and the outcomes. Once a decision is made to scale, I stay accountable for the results. Too often, leaders who championed a project start searching for external causes to blame at the first sign of trouble, rather than owning the need to pivot or, crucially, to kill the project.
This is how “project graveyards” are created, and in consequence, zombie projects. These are initiatives that suck up time, money, and morale long after everyone knows they’re doomed. Keeping them on life support is usually a failure of courage, or rather, the fear of making another “wrong” call. So we let the zombies hang around, “just in case.”
Of course, none of this works without having the right people. A wrong hire or a toxic personality can sink even the most validated idea. Hiring for team players over solo heroes, managing performance courageously, and knowing which cultural battles to fight are all part of the equation. The brilliant solo player might be able to easily build a stunning POC, but the collaborative team builds and maintains a lasting product.
I’ve also seen leaders who consistently make great calls. Their pattern is clear:
They define the minimal viable scope to validate a need.
They get the right people for the job, blending internal talent with strategic hires.
They vigilantly guard team culture against toxicity and lone-wolf mentalities.
They have the courage to let people go and to kill projects, understanding that these are acts of strategic clarity, not failure.
They are team players themselves, accountable and in the trenches.
The takeaway isn’t to think small. It’s to build smart. Start with the problem, not the headcount. Prove you’re on to something with the team you have. Scale your team as a reward for finding value, not as a gamble to invent it.