andreas jonsson

CEO @Shield: Get all posts from all your people, all in one dashboard. Stats and analytics for LinkedIn. Learn what works. Get in touch 💬

@TheShieldIndex — LinkedIn benchmarks at www.theshieldindex.com ↗

@Shield — LinkedIn analytics for creators, team, and agencies at www.shieldapp.ai ↗

@bootstrap.university — for founders going from zero to ramen without investors at www.bootstrap.university ↗

CEO, Co-founder

Redefining LinkedIn analytics since 2019.

#shieldapp #weareshield

you can:

take part in the circlejerking of how bad linkedin allegedly is, how much organic reach apparently suck, and how the good old times were much better and more fruitful

or you can:

snap out of that and bring yourself back to the present and make do with what you have right here and right now, irrespective of whether some other time that no longer exists was better or worse, and then focus on the work in front of you

one nets you results, the other nets you nothing but engagement from others who also aren’t getting results

LinkedIn reach benchmarks by follower bracket (Feb 2026):

0–1K followers: 148 impressions
1–5K followers: 479 impressions
5–10K followers: 774 impressions
10–25K followers: 1,216 impressions
25–50K followers: 2,143 impressions
50–100K followers: 5,144 impressions
100K+ followers: 12,520 impressions

numbers shown here are typical impressions per post (median). the top 10% and top 1% travel much further.

laugh or cry the full breakdown is in the latest Index edition.

TheShieldIndex

bootstrapped founder | shield + the shield index

people who fully automate their LinkedIn comments with AI tell me why? like what's the reasoning here i'm trying to understand

alrite have a great rest of your weekend everyone except the AI comment bots

post saves & post sends

the most underrated most overlooked metrics on linkedin

i’ve seen posts get more saves than likes. and personally i’d take that any day of the week

when you save a post or send it to someone that signals resonance on a whole other level than a like or a comment

and therefore my fav two-step prompt on the shield agent is this:

1. fetch my top 100 posts last six months
2. show me top 10 most saved and what they have in common - timing, topic, structure, style, etc.

gm all humans on linkedin

a few exciting things out the gate this morning

1. my love for brew batch coffee is back: unparalleled caffeine kick. the flat in flat white suddenly got a new meaning

2. february is over which means february linkedin benchmarks is coming up. if you wonder whether reach is up down left or right, what content types matter and more, you can follow the Index for free

3. i packed away my winter coats this weekend and caught a ray of sunshine which i for one welcome here in the dark north

ok that's it, talk later

if you're careful "how you show up" are you really showing up as you?

i'm not saying go full pajamas savage ben n jerry's in all your content and encounters - but if you censor yourself to fit a role, a title, to fit someone else's perception of you...

are you really being true? unapologetically you?

and if you're not, is that not gonna be exhausting?

i don’t like reading blatant AI content

but what’s worse is being unsure whether it’s AI or not

like, did you really write this? or did you prompt it? how much were you involved?

i don’t know, if i see clearly that yeah that’s AI and the same template on repeat i smile and carry on

but if im unsure i feel fooled in a way

hbu?

ps yes i wrote this can you tell

how far does a typical linkedin post actually go?

we measured it across 50,000 posts in February.

a typical post at 0–1K followers gets 148 impressions. at 100K+, 12,520.

all other follower brackets are in the Index.

subscribe for free. we ship at 5pm cet today.

TheShieldIndex

posting on LinkedIn is a lottery for certain account sizes

we took a close look at virality versus baseline reach across 50,000 posts spanning 13 follower brackets from 0–500 followers to 1M+

as i said, some account sizes play the lottery. most posts net nothing. a few take home everything. some brackets are stable like that while others move month over month.

it's all in the Index.

subscribe for free. we ship at 5pm cet today.

TheShieldIndex

87.9x

that's the breakout (viral) multiple for accounts with fewer than 500 followers. the ratio between a top 1% post and a typical post.

for accounts with 1M+ followers it's 6.2x.

we tracked ~50,000 linkedin posts in january and measured the breakout multiple across every follower bracket. the full data cut drops this week in the Index.

some brackets are playing the lottery while others barely move.

TheShieldIndex

1. share something interesting 

either people learn, earn or grow from it. that’s something worth saving and sharing.

2. share something often

keep showing up and follow step one. people will hit like, follow, subscribe, save, send.

3. share ways to buy from you

free builds trust, paid builds a business. if there’s no way to buy, people won’t, duh.

that’s the recipe. you can complicate it however much you want but the fundamentals won’t change.

in other words: build ship sell repeat.

Helping growth-stage founders cut through mental chaos and scale profitably without burning out | Decision Clarity Advisor | 2X Founder | Inner Operating Systems™

I spent 15+ years leading global operations driving efficiency and profitability at enterprise scale.

Then I became a founder. Twice.

And I learned the hard truth: 
Operational expertise alone doesn't cut it in the founder world. The frameworks work. The strategy is sound. But founders can't execute because they're drowning in decision overload, constant pressure, and the mental load of being responsible for everything.

I got my ass kicked mentally in my first venture. Rebuilt myself. Found what actually works. 

Then specialized in SaaS operations - working on churn reduction, profitability improvement, and operational efficiency. I was featured by Custify as a contributor to their 2025 Customer Success Forecast, where I emphasized that value delivery and linking customer outcomes to revenue will transform CS into a key growth driver.

Here's what I learned: 
You can't fix founder bottlenecks with operational systems alone. And you can't fix them with mindset work alone. You need both.

That's what I install.

The Operational Side:
- Decision systems that cut founder load by 50%
- Efficiency frameworks for growth-stage chaos
- Operational discipline that drives profitability

The Founder Psychology Side:
- Decision confidence when stakes are high
- Mental systems to handle pressure without burning out
- The grit to execute when it's hard

Most ops consultants give you the systems but don't address why you can't execute them. 
Most coaches give you mindset work but no operational rigor.

I do both because I've lived both.

I work with growth-stage founders/CEO who are:
- The bottleneck in their business
- Drowning in decisions with weak execution
- Need to improve margins and efficiency
- Want to scale past themselves

If that's you, let's talk. 
Enterprise methodology. Founder empathy. Real outcomes.

Anil Karakkattuu

Stop hiring executives into decision chaos. 
You’re not buying relief...
You’re buying a more expensive version of the same bottleneck.

Most founders hire a COO / VP when they’re exhausted:
“I’m overwhelmed. I’ll hire a senior operator. They’ll figure it out.”

Behind the scenes, nothing is defined:
- No clear map of where work actually gets stuck
- Vague mandates like “own execution”
- Zero clarity on which decisions they truly own vs need your sign‑off

You didn’t fix the bottleneck. 
You just added more people feeding into it.[
Great executives expect to decide and own outcomes. 

Instead, they find:
- Informal power (you) overriding formal roles
- Decisions revisited or reversed after the meeting
- Ambiguous authority, so everything gets escalated
They look average not because they’re bad, but because your decision design is bad.

Before your next exec hire, fix this:
1. Run a decision audit
List the 10–15 recurring, high‑impact decisions in their domain. 
Mark who actually makes them and how often they bounce back to you.

2. Define decision rights
For each decision type,
Below threshold X → exec decides, informs later
Above threshold X → decide together

3. Set success + constraints
90 - 180 day definition of “good”
Non‑negotiables they must align on (culture, strategy, capital)

Executives compound your impact only when they step into a designed decision system, not a fog of “figure it out.”

Otherwise, you’re not hiring a leader.
You’re hiring a very expensive project manager whose real job is chasing you for decisions.

Like this post - Share it. Save it

Follow me Anil Karakkattuu to stop being the bottleneck and scale profits without scaling your hours.

Helping $1M–$20M software founders stop being the bottleneck and scale profit without scaling their hours | Ex-Oracle/Infosys Operations Leader → 3X Founder | Ops Systems + Founder Psychology

The system that built your startup will break your startup.
Not because you're doing something wrong.

Because what works at 10 people breaks at 30+.
This pattern destroy momentum at dozens of growth-stage startups.
- The early days felt magical.
- Everyone just knew the priorities. 
- Decisions happened in hallways. 
- Roles overlapped and nobody cared. 
Tribal knowledge held everything together.

Then you hit the first dozen hires.
And everything scatters.
- Same topics appear in every meeting. 
- Roadmaps keep shifting. 
- Strategy ends up living in Slack threads nobody can find.

The data confirms what you're feeling:
→ 67% of well-formulated strategies fail due to poor execution 
→ Fewer than 33% of senior executives direct reports clearly understand corporate priorities 
→ Only 5% of employees can actually explain their company's strategy

This isn't a people problem.
It's an operating model problem.

What breaks after the first dozen hires,
- Tribal knowledge stops working. 
- New people don't know what "obvious" means to the founding team.
- Priorities become unclear. 
- Without explicit alignment, teams pull in different directions.
- Decisions stall. Every question requires - lets do one more meeting.
- Ownership gaps appear. 
- Two people think they own the same thing. Or worse, nobody does.

The fix isn't more process. It's making three things explicit,
1. Decision rights: 
Who decides what? When? With what input?
2. Role boundaries: 
Who owns what outcome? Where does my job end and yours begin?
3. Management rhythm: 
What's the schedule? Weekly? Monthly? What gets reviewed when?

The chaos that worked at 10 people becomes dysfunction at 30+.
Strong companies still leave value on the table because of operating model gaps.
Your team isn't confused because they're not smart enough.
They're confused because you haven't upgraded the operating system that runs your company.

The question isn't whether to change how you operate.
It's whether you do it before or after the wheels come off.

Like this post? - Share it. Save it.

Follow me Anil Karakkattuu to stop being the bottleneck and scale profits without scaling your hours

Being indispensable feels like leadership.
It's actually how you become the single point of failure.

I see this constantly with founders.
- They're in every decision.
- Every important meeting.
- Every strategic call.
They think they're leading.
But they're strangling growth.

Early stage:
Being hands-on works.
Fast decisions. Personal instinct. Founder heroics.
You touch everything and it moves.

Growth stage:
Same behavior. Different outcome.
Now when you touch everything, nothing moves without you.
Projects stall waiting for your input.
Your calendar becomes the roadmap.
Team stops deciding because they've learned to wait.
You went from driver to bottleneck.

The real cost:
Your best people leave.
Decisions pile up in your inbox.
The company moves only as fast as your attention.
If you get sick or distracted?
Everything stops. Because you didn't build a company.
You built a dependency.

Your team isn't weak.
You trained them to be dependent.
Every time you jumped back into delegated work...
Every time you redecided what they already decided...
Every time you insisted on being in "just this one meeting"...
You taught them - Don't think. Wait for the founder.

Control feels safe short-term.
But it creates massive long-term risk.
You protect this quarter and endanger the company.

Real leadership isn't - I'm involved in everything.
Real leadership is - things get better without me in the room.

That means, 
- Clear decision rights. Team knows what they own.
- Authority thresholds. Decisions under $X never need you.
- Building decision muscles, not just delegating tasks.

When you do this, execution speeds up. Strong people stay.
You get back to work only you can do.

Stop asking: Am I involved enough?
Start asking: Did I design the system so I don't have to be?

Where are you the single point of failure that you shouldn't be?

Like this post - Share it. Save it

Follow me Anil Karakkattuu to stop being the bottleneck and scale profits without scaling your hours.

Most founders confuse being involved with adding value.
They're not the same thing.

I see this frequently,
- Founders sitting in meetings where they don't speak.
- Reviewing work that doesn't need their input.
- Asking for updates on things that are running fine.
- Approving decisions that don't need their approval.

They think this is leadership. It's not.
Actually, it's just showing up.

Here's what I ask them:
Before getting involved, answer this,
- Will anything change because you're there?
Not should you know what's happening.
Not do you want to stay informed.
- Will your presence actually change the outcome?
If the answer is no...
You're not adding value. Instead you're adding friction.

Early stage, you had to be everywhere.
You were the only one who could make certain calls.
The only one with context and the only one the team trusted to decide.
That worked. But now you're at scale.
You hired people who can make those calls.
Who have the context and who know what they're doing.
And you're still showing up like it's day one.

You're there for one of two reasons.
Reason 1: You don't trust them.
Fair question to ask yourself.
Did you hire the wrong people?
Or did you never give them space to prove themselves?
Because you can't complain about lack of ownership while sitting in every meeting.
Pick one.

Reason 2: They're new and need coaching.
Also fair.
New teams need you in the room initially.
But put a date on it.
Help and guide them for the next 90 days while you ramp up.
After that, let them drive things. 
Don't let coaching turn into permanent attendance.

The shift you need to make,
Being involved = I'm in the room.
Adding value = things are better because I was in the room.
Most of your calendar is the first one.
It should be the second.

Try this,
Look at your week. Not just meetings, everything.
- The reviews you're doing.
- The updates you're asking for.
- The approvals sitting in your queue.

For each one, ask yourself honestly:
If I don't touch this, does the outcome change?
If the answer is no, step back.
Send a note to your team - I trust you on this. I'm here if you need me.
Then let them handle it and watch what happens.

Most of the time, nothing breaks.
The work gets done. Sometimes even faster, because they're not waiting for you anymore.

Your time is finite.
Stop spending it on being involved.
Start spending it on adding value.

Where are you showing up without changing the outcome?

Like this post - Share it. Save it

Follow me Anil Karakkattuu to stop being the bottleneck and scale profits without scaling your hours.

What got you to $1M will kill you before $10M.
It's called founder role ossification.

Founder Role Ossification - When you get locked into specific behaviors and responsibilities that drove early success, even though your growing company needs entirely different leadership capabilities.

And most founders don't see it happening until it's too late.
Early stage, you were the builder. You coded, you sold, you decided everything.
It worked because speed beat perfection.
But around $10M ARR, something shifts.
The same behaviors that built your company now choke it.

You're still approving every feature. Still reviewing every technical decision. Still the final word on everything.
Except now a larger team is waiting on you to say yes.
- Product roadmaps stall waiting for your sign-off.
- Your best engineers feel underutilized.
- Team velocity drops despite more headcount.

These are the 3 traps that kill founders at scale:
- You won't delegate product decisions
- Every feature needs your approval. 
- Your team stopped building, they're just waiting for permission.

Every decision routes through you
Your calendar became the company bottleneck. 
Approval queues stack up. Nothing moves without you.
You can't hire people smarter than you
You're the technical expert. If someone's better than you in your domain, it threatens who you are.
So you limit who you hire. Which limits what the company becomes.

Early stage needs an explorer who navigates uncharted territory.
Growth stage needs a system builder who makes the company run without them.
Most founders stay in explorer mode because that's what made them successful.
But what made you successful at $1M makes you the bottleneck at $10M.

Do this today,
Look at your last 5 decisions. Write them down.
Which ones only you could make? 
Which ones just came to you out of habit?

If more than 2 came to you out of habit, you're the bottleneck.
The companies that scale aren't led by founders who stay the same.
They're led by founders who evolve faster than their companies grow.

Like this post? - Share it. Save it.

Follow me Anil Karakkattuu to stop being the bottleneck and scale profits without scaling your hours.

Stop hiring for the org chart you want.
Hire for the chaos you have.

This mistake kill momentum at dozens of growth-stage startups.
The pattern is always the same.
You raise your Series A. You feel pressure to "professionalize." 
You bring in that impressive exec from big companies like Google or Meta with the perfect resume - VP of Sales. Managed 200 people. $50M budget.

Six months later, they're frustrated.
- Where's my team?
- Who built the sales playbook?
- I need resources to hit these numbers.

Here's what the data shows:
→ 65% of senior hires at pre-Series B companies leave within 18 months 
→ 23% of startup failures trace back to team mismatch 
→ A bad hire costs at least 30% of their first-year salary

The expensive mistake isn't hiring too slowly.
It's hiring for the company you want to be instead of the company you are.

The truth about stage mismatch:
Big company executives optimize systems.
Startup leaders build systems from nothing.

These are completely different skills.
Running a 200-person sales org is a completely different skill than closing your first 10 deals with no playbook.
Managing a $50M budget is a completely different skill than figuring out growth with $5K and a laptop.

Before you hire that impressive resume, ask one question:
"Have they BUILT this from scratch before?"
Not managed. Not optimized. Not scaled.
Built.

Look for someone who went from 0 to 1.
Someone who made it work with duct tape and hustle.
Someone who gets energized by constraints, not frustrated by them.

Your 5-10 person team doesn't need a VP who knows how to run 150 people.
You need someone who knows how to build the team from 5 to 50.
Those are different humans.

Hire for today's chaos.
Not tomorrow's org chart.

Most founders think they have a time management problem.
They have a decision management problem.

You're not tired because you worked long hours.
You're tired because you made too many decisions.
And most of them shouldn't have been yours.

I run a decision audit with every founder I work with.
Simple exercise:
Track every decision you make for 3 days.
Not tasks. Decisions.
- Should we discount this deal?
- Which feature ships first?
- Do I approve this hire?
- Is this customer worth keeping?

Here's what happens:
Every decision burns mental energy.
By afternoon, you're making worse calls than you did in the morning.
Same person. Same information.
Different decision state.

The pattern I see:
Founders optimize their calendar.
They don't optimize their decision load.
They block time for "deep work."
But they're already decision-fatigued before they start.
No wonder strategic thinking feels impossible.

When I audit founder decisions, here's what I find:
Most decisions fall into two buckets:
Strategic (pricing, product direction, key hires etc).
Operational (approvals, tactical calls, firefighting etc).
Guess which ones drain you?
Both.

But only one scales your profit.
The fix isn't better time management.
It's decision architecture.

Step 1: Audit your decisions for 3 days
Track every choice you make.
Strategy vs ops. High-impact vs low-impact.

Step 2: Identify the pattern
Which decisions repeat?
Which shouldn't need you at all?
Which are you making because no one else has the framework?

Step 3: Systemize, delegate, or eliminate
Many of your decisions can be:
Systemized (create criteria, team executes)
Delegated (with clear guardrails)
Eliminated (shouldn't be decisions at all)

Your energy isn't infinite.
Your decision capacity isn't infinite.
Stop treating them like they are.
Track your decisions for 3 days.
Then ask: how many of these shouldn't be mine?

Like this post - Share it. Save it

Follow me Anil Karakkattuu to stop being the bottleneck and scale profits without scaling your hours.

Helping $1M–$20M software founders stop being the bottleneck and scale profit without scaling their hours | Ex-Oracle/Infosys Operations Leader → 2X Founder | Ops Systems + Founder Psychology

Your 1:1s are making your team weaker, not stronger.
I know that sounds harsh. But hear me out.

One-on-one meetings increased over 500% since the pandemic. 
Most founders now spend hours each week in 1:1s with their team.
They think they're building relationships and developing people.
Actually? 
They're creating dependency.

Here's what I see constantly,
Founder schedules weekly 1:1s with each direct report.
- Team member brings problems. Founder solves them.
- Team member brings decisions. Founder makes them.
- Team member brings challenges. Founder removes them.

Week after week. Same pattern.
The founder thinks: I'm being a good leader. I'm supporting my team.
What's actually happening is that you're teaching them not to think.

Research shows that when subordinates perceive their manager as only listening without providing feedback, their motivation drops.

Your team doesn't just want you to listen. They want frameworks to solve problems themselves.

But most 1:1s don't build capability. They build reliance.
- Every time you solve their problem in a 1:1, you're saying: 
You can't handle this without me.
- Every time you make their decision, you're saying: 
Your judgment isn't good enough.
- Every time you remove their obstacle, you're saying: 
Don't figure it out. Just escalate.
Then you wonder why they won't take ownership.

Strong 1:1s don't solve problems for people. They teach people how to solve problems.
Weak 1:1s turn you into the answer to every question.

Make this shift.
- Instead of solving their pricing question, teach them your pricing framework.
- Instead of deciding their hire, walk them through your hiring criteria.
- Instead of fixing their customer issue, show them the escalation protocol.
Then next time, they don't need the 1:1. They have the tools.

Your goal isn't to be available for every problem. It's to make yourself unnecessary for most problems.

If your team can't function without weekly 1:1s with you, you haven't built a team. You've built dependents.

What are you solving in 1:1s that you should be teaching instead?

Like this post? - Share it. Save it

Follow me Anil Karakkattuu to stop being the bottleneck and scale profits without scaling your hours.

Individual talent starts companies.
Organizational capability scales them.

Most founders don't know the difference.
I see founders obsessing over hiring.
- If I can just find the right VP...
- We need A-players...
- Let me upgrade this role...

They think talent is the answer.
It's not.

Individual talent = what one person can do
Skills. Experience and the decision-making ability.

Organizational capability = what the company can do without depending on any one person
Systems, processes, knowledge transfer and repeatable outcomes.

Early stage, you lean on individual talent.
- Your best salesperson closes the big deals.
- Your best engineer builds the core product.
- Your best operator keeps things running.

The company's performance depends entirely on those individuals showing up and performing.
That works. Until it doesn't.

- What happens when your best salesperson goes on vacation?
Deals stall.
- What happens when your best engineer gets sick?
Shipping slows.
- What happens when you lose that key person?
Everything they knew how to do... dies with them.

That's the trap of individual talent:
The company can only perform at the level of its best individuals.
And only when those individuals are available, engaged, and not burned out.
You can't scale that.

Organizational capability changes the equation:
Instead of "only employee A knows how to close enterprise deals"...
You build a sales process that anyone trained can execute.

Instead of "only employee B can architect the product"...
You document technical decisions so the team can move without him.

Instead of "only the founder can make pricing calls"...
You create a framework so the team decides and the founder reviews.

This shifts everthing,
Individual talent = performance depends on who shows up
Organizational capability = performance is independent of who shows up

This is why great people leave,
They join thinking they'll build capability but then realize the company just wants them to BE the capability.
To be the person everyone depends on and to be the answer to every question in their domain.
That's exhausting and it doesn't scale.

So,
- Stop asking - who can do this?
- Start asking - how do we build capability so anyone trained can do this?
- Document how decisions get made.
- Create frameworks that transfer knowledge.
- Build processes that don't require constant firefighting.

Individual talent starts the company.
Organizational capability scales it.

If you're still dependent on specific people to function...
You don't have a collection of systems.
You have a collection of talented individuals.
And the day one of them leaves, you're stuck.

Where are you relying on individual talent instead of building organizational capability?

Like this post - Share it. Save it

Follow me Anil Karakkattuu to stop being the bottleneck and scale profits without scaling your hours.

Only 66% of Series A companies make it to Series B.
The ones that don't? They fail for different reasons.

1. Market timing. 
2. Burn rate. 
3. Missed product-market fit.

But there's one killer most founders don't see coming, 
Operational chaos disguised as growth.

You close Series A. The money hits your account.
First instinct? Hire faster. Marketing spend triples. You expand the product.
From the outside, it looks like momentum.
From the inside, everything's breaking.
Strategy lives in Slack threads no one can find. 
Roadmaps shift every week. 
Your best people are confused about who owns what.

After the first dozen hires, tribal knowledge breaks down, roles, decision rights, and priorities aren't explicit anymore, so teams start pulling in different directions.
You hired to solve bottlenecks. You just created new ones.

74% of high-growth startups fail because of premature scaling.
Not because they ran out of money.
Because they spent it building complexity they couldn't manage.

And here's what Series B investors actually want to see,
Not your headcount. Not your burn rate.
Operational efficiency - proof you can scale without collapsing under your own weight.
- Can you handle more customers without proportionally more people?
- Can decisions happen without you in every room?
- Can your team execute when you're not there?
If the answer is no, you're not ready for Series B.

The companies that make it from A to B don't just hit revenue milestones.
- They build the operational foundation before they scale.
- They document how decisions get made.
- They define who owns what.
- They make themselves unnecessary in the day-to-day.

You can't fix market timing. But you can fix your operations.
And that's the bottleneck you actually control.

Like this post? - Share it. Save it.

Follow me Anil Karakkattuu to stop being the bottleneck and scale profits without scaling your hours.

Everyone tells you hire A-players.
That advice is broken.

Here's why:
An A-player in a broken system becomes a B-player in 6 months.
Or they quit.
You hire an incredible A-player.
Top-tier resume. Stellar references.
Six months later, they're underperforming.

You think: I guess they weren't an A-player after all.
Wrong.
You put an A-player into a C-level system.
They had no chance.

Here's what actually happens:
The A-player joins and asks: 
A- Player: What's our decision framework for X?
You: There isn't one.
A- Player: How do we prioritize between Y and Z?"
You: I decide case-by-case.
A- Player: What's the approval process for deals over $50K?"
You: Just run it by me.

The A-player realizes:
Every decision funnels through the you.
There are no systems.
Just heroics and firefighting.

So they do one of two things:
Option 1: They wait
Wait for the you to make every call.
Wait for clarity that never comes.
Wait for systems that don't exist.
Their output drops because the infrastructure can't support them.

Option 2: They leave
"This isn't what I signed up for."
And they're right.
They came to scale a business.
Not babysit broken processes.

You think hiring solves the problem.
It doesn't.
Hiring into a broken system just creates expensive frustration.

The A-player needs:
1. Clear decision frameworks so they're not waiting on you.
2. Documented processes so they're not reinventing everything.
3. Authority to act so they're not just asking permission.

Without that?
You didn't hire an A-player.
You hired someone to watch you be the bottleneck.

Before you hire A-players, build A-level systems.
Otherwise you're paying top dollar for people to operate at half capacity.

The companies that retain great talent?
They don't just hire well.
They build systems that let great people actually perform.

Before you blame the hire, check the infrastructure.
Are you giving A-players an environment where they can actually win?

Like this post - Share it. Save it

Follow me Anil Karakkattuu to stop being the bottleneck and scale profits without scaling your hours.

75% of venture backed startups fail.
Millions in the bank. Smart investors. Strong pitch decks.

And 3 out of 4 still fail.
Founders think getting funded means they've figured it out.
Nope. Funding isn't validation. It's acceleration.
And the research backs this up, 
→ 90% of startup failures are self-destruction, not competition 
→ 74% of high-growth startups fail due to premature scaling 
→ Startups that scale properly grow 20x faster than those who don't

The Startup Genome Project studied 3,200+ startups and found a clear pattern.
Funded startups don't fail because they run out of money.
They fail because they spend it too fast on the wrong things.

Premature scaling actually looks like this,
- Hiring ahead of product-market fit.
- Spending on ads before the funnel converts.
- Building features nobody asked for.
- Growing the team before the model is repeatable.

And the painful part,
Startups that scaled prematurely raised 3x more capital in early stages.
But by the time they needed to truly scale, they raised 18x less than those who paced themselves.
None of the premature scalers passed 100,000 users.

Money is an amplifier.
If your foundation is strong, capital accelerates growth.
If your foundation is cracked, capital accelerates collapse.
The same dollars. Completely different outcomes.

The founders who beat the 75% do something counterintuitive,
- They stay small longer than feels comfortable.
- They validate before they hire.
- They prove the model works at $1M before chasing $10M.
- They treat funding as fuel for a working engine, not a replacement for one.

Raising money is a skill.
Spending it wisely is a different skill entirely.
The startups that return capital to investors are the ones who waited until they were ready to deploy it.

Patience isn't the opposite of ambition.
It's the foundation of it.

Like this post? - Share it. Save it.

Follow me Anil Karakkattuu to stop being the bottleneck and scale profits without scaling your hours

taplio

The Battle

andreas jonsson

Anil Karakkattuu

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Scoreandreas jonsson's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreAnil Karakkattuu's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

andreas jonsson

Anil Karakkattuu

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}andreas jonsson's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreAnil Karakkattuu's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance Scoreandreas jonsson's LinkedIn Performance