Team Performance and Morale

Scaling from 50 to 100 employees almost killed our company. Until we discovered a simple org structure that unlocked $100M+ in annual revenue. In my 10+ years of experience as a founder, one of the biggest challenges I faced in scaling was bridging the organizational gap between startup and enterprise. We hit that wall at around 100~ employees. What worked beautifully with a small team suddenly became our biggest obstacle to growth. The problem was our functional org structure: Engineers reporting to engineering, product to product, business to business. This created a complex dependency web: • Planning took weeks • No clear ownership  • Business threw Jira tickets over the fence and prayed for them to get completed • Engineers didn’t understand priorities and worked on problems that didn’t align with customer needs That was when I studied Amazon's Single-Threaded Owner (STO) model, in which dedicated GMs run independent business units with their own cross-functional teams and manage P&L It looked great for Amazon's scale but felt impossible for growing companies like ours. These 2 critical barriers made it impractical for our scale: 1. Engineering Squad Requirements: True STO demands complete engineering teams (including managers) reporting to a single owner. At our size, we couldn't justify full engineering squads for each business unit. To make it work, we would have to quadruple our engineering headcount. 2. P&L Owner Complexity: STO leaders need unicorn-level skills: deep business acumen and P&L management experience. Not only are these leaders rare and expensive, but requiring all these skills in one person would have limited our talent pool and slowed our ability to launch new initiatives. What we needed was a model that captured STO's focus and accountability but worked for our size and growth needs. That's when we created Mission-Aligned Teams (MATs), a hybrid model that changed our execution (for good) Key principles: • Each team owns a specific mission (e.g., improving customer service, optimizing payment flow) • Teams are cross-functional and self-sufficient,  • Leaders can be anyone (engineer, PM, marketer) who's good at execution • People still report functionally for career development • Leaders focus on execution, not people management The results exceeded our highest expectations: New MAT leads launched new products, each generating $5-10M in revenue within a year with under 10 person teams. Planning became streamlined. Ownership became clear. But it's NOT for everyone (like STO wasn’t for us) If you're under 50 people, the overhead probably isn't worth it. If you're Amazon-scale, pure STO might be better. MAT works best in the messy middle: when you're too big for everyone to be in one room but too small for a full enterprise structure. image courtesy of Manu Cornet ------ If you liked this, follow me Henry Shi as I share insights from my journey of building and scaling a  $1B/year business.

Rick Rubin went on stage in Helsinki the day after my talk. Someone asked how he resolves creative differences with artists. His answer was simple: change the conversation from "I disagree" to "let's build it." Then he shared a story: An artist played him a song. The transition didn't work. Rubin told him so. The artist said, "We'll just cut that part in half." Rubin thought to himself: What a dumb idea. But he didn't say that. He said, "Let's try it." The artist played it. It worked. Rubin is a legend. He's produced everyone from Johnny Cash to Jay-Z. Instead, he bit his tongue and let the artist prove him wrong. The principle: when you make an idea tangible, it stops being the person's idea. It becomes something you can both look at objectively and improve together. Once you build it, the truth is obvious. Here's what this looks like in practice: Your designer wants to change the entire homepage layout. You think it's too risky. Instead of three meetings debating it, you say: "Let's build a prototype and test it with 50 users this week." Your sales team wants to restructure the pricing page. Instead of blocking it because you're worried about conversions, you say: "Let's run it as an A/B test on 20% of traffic for two weeks." Your engineer wants to rebuild a core feature from scratch. You think it's overengineered. But instead of killing it in the planning phase, you say: "Spike it out in three days and show me if the performance gain is real." You're not saying yes to everything. You're saying, "Let's find out." Rubin also said something that stuck with me: "If there's disagreement, I always side with the artist's vision. Because to them, it's their career. To me, it's just one piece of my portfolio." Most leaders think backing down makes them look weak. Rubin knows that siding with the person who has the most at stake makes better work happen. Your job isn't to be right. It's to create the conditions where the best idea wins. Stop debating. Start building. P.S. This insight is from this week's newsletter where I break down why Yamaha dominates while Steinway got sold to private equity: https://lnkd.in/efSqP_9K P.P.S. Access additional research links, the podcast, and the full archive in the first comment 👇 Thank you to Nordic Business Forum!

I’ll be honest. 
When I first started stepping away from the day-to-day… I used to feel a strange satisfaction when things broke in my absence. 
It made me feel important. 
Like I was the glue holding it all together. But the truth is harsher: 
Every time something breaks when you’re not there, it’s a sign you’ve failed to build a system that works without you. That’s not leadership. 
That’s being a bottleneck. 
A liability. Because when progress depends on your availability, your time, your personal input - the whole business becomes fragile. 
You become the single point of failure. Let me be clear: 
If your team needs you to approve every small move, you’re not scaling excellence - you’re scaling dependence. 
That’s ego. Not leadership. Real leadership is when: - The thinking happens without you. - The decisions happen without you. - The momentum continues without you. Not because you’re not needed. 
But because you’ve built a system that doesn’t collapse when you’re not in the room. If you step away and things grind to a halt, you haven’t built a high-performing team. You’ve built a fragile operation propped up by your control. And that’s on you. Every time something breaks in your absence, it’s feedback: - A system isn’t clear. - Accountability isn’t owned. - Trust isn’t built. It’s a signal to fix the machine, not to double down on micromanaging. Because here’s the harsh reality:
 A business that can’t run without you is a business that can’t grow beyond you. Let that sting. 💡George Stern

Most people still misunderstand what actually motivates people. They think it’s more money, perks, or praise. But according to the research, what people really want is something else entirely: 1. Autonomy – the freedom to choose how we work 2. Mastery – the chance to improve at something meaningful 3. Purpose – the feeling that our work matters One study showed that when students were told they had to write an essay, their writing quality dropped. When they were given a choice, the writing improved. Why? Autonomy. It leads to higher quality outcomes. Another experiment found that people who were given a sense of purpose before a task (rather than just a financial incentive) persisted longer and performed better. Money can motivate in the short term. But if you want performance, creativity, and grit over the long term? Give people a reason to care, and the room to run.

At Meta, there's a famous poster of a rocking horse that says "Do not mistake motion for progress." Recently I saw an AI study proving exactly why: teams using AI tools felt 20% more productive while actually being 19% less productive. How? They spent more time prompting, waiting, and reviewing AI output. Less than 44% of AI suggestions were accepted without modification. Yet they felt 20% faster while going backwards. The scariest part: without measurement, these teams would have doubled down. They felt productive. Their managers saw more output. Everyone was happy except the business metrics. Here's how to avoid becoming another AI casualty in 2025: 1. Set one primary metric per team per quarter. Just one. Not ten KPIs. Not a balanced scorecard. One number that moves the business. Activation rate. Retention. Gross margin. Pick one. While everyone's deploying AI tools based on how they feel, companies that built billion-dollar empires measure everything. Procter & Gamble (the $400B company behind Tide, Gillette, and 100+ other brands) runs every initiative against one primary metric. A new sales process? Conversion rate. Marketing campaign? Revenue attributed. Clear pass/fail criteria. The lesson: features are motion. Metric improvement is progress. 2. Run time-boxed trials with control groups for every AI tool. Fortune 500 companies force teams to define success criteria upfront. Before you build, you write. Before you deploy, you measure. UPS learned this with their route optimization. They measured miles per route. Ran pilots site-by-site. Scaled only after cutting 6-8 miles per route. Now saves 100 million miles annually. 3. Cap work-in-progress to force actual completion. AI makes it trivially easy to start new things. Generate a proposal. Draft ten email campaigns. Create fifteen dashboard variations. More motion, everywhere. But starting isn't finishing. Toyota learned this decades ago: limit work-in-progress. Cap initiatives per team. You can't start something new until you ship or kill something old. Why? Because ten half-built features are worth less than one that actually ships. AI amplifies this problem - it's never been easier to create motion that looks like progress but delivers nothing. — 2025 is the year of AI-accelerated motion. Notice the pattern: every successful company makes it HARDER to ship, not easier. They add friction. They demand evidence. They stop more than they start. Because they learned what that rocking horse teaches: motion without progress is just expensive theater. While everyone else rides the AI rocking horse, you'll be the one actually moving forward.

Most people are taught how to be high performers. But too few are taught how to perform in a team. And that’s a problem, because in most roles, you’re not an individual contributor. You’re part of a larger entity, working with others to build something. Yet, I see founders spend hours refining their product or systems,  But don't devote time to team development. At HomeServe, I approached team performance with purpose,  And it was one of the best decisions I made. Here are 7 tools I’ve used (and still use) to build high-performing teams,  Based on real lessons from building a £4.1bn business: 1️⃣ Start With Why (Simon Sinek) ↳ Before you focus on what or how...get clear on why. WHAT – The product you sell or the service you provide HOW – What makes you different WHY – Your deeper purpose or belief Every great team needs a reason to get out of bed in the morning. 2️⃣ The 70-20-10 Rule (McCall, Lombardo & Eichinger) ↳ How people actually learn on the job: 70% from challenging experiences 20% from coaching and mentoring 10% from formal training Most teams over-invest in training, and under-invest in real development. I'm amazed at how few founders or CEOs have a coach or mentor. 3️⃣ The Trust Triangle (Frances Frei, Harvard) ↳ Trust isn’t built with perks. It’s earned in three ways: Authenticity – Are you real? Logic – Do your decisions make sense? Empathy – Do you care? Without trust, you can’t build speed or loyalty. 4️⃣ The 5 Stages of Team Development (Tuckman Model) 1. Forming – Team gets together 2. Storming – Conflicts surface 3. Norming – Ground rules form 4. Performing – Results roll in 5. Adjourning – Project ends or evolves Don't panic during ‘storming’. It’s necessary friction. 5️⃣ The Johari Window (Luft & Ingham) ↳ Self-awareness is a team sport. Open – You know, they know Hidden – You know, they don’t Blind Spot – They know, you don’t Unknown – No one knows (yet) This helps surface feedback, build confidence, and avoid surprises. 6️⃣ The Energy/Impact Matrix (Inspired by McKinsey) ↳ Map every team member’s impact vs. energy. Use it to: Make smart hiring/firing decisions Spot burnout early Retain high performers High-performing teams don’t tolerate drift. 7️⃣ The RAPID Decision-Making Model (Bain & Company) ↳ High-performing teams make fast, clear decisions. Recommend – Suggest the course of action Agree – Those who must sign off Perform – Executes the decision Input – Provides relevant facts or opinions Decide – Final decision-maker This clears up delays, dropped balls, and blame. Building a great team is about building an environment where talent can actually thrive. I go deeper into team-building in my new book. Order it today: https://lnkd.in/eRYDKXdT ♻️ Repost if you believe team performance should be built, not assumed. And for more on how I scaled teams to build a £4.1bn business, Follow me Richard Harpin.

This Teacher Changes 30 Lives Each Morning Here's Why This Works Every morning, a teacher greets her students one by one - not with rules, but with choice: A hug, A high-five, a nod, or quiet. A ritual so simple. Yet it tells 30 children: You are seen. You are safe. You belong. Here’s what this teaches us about leadership - and how to apply it at work: 1. Honor Autonomy (Self-Determination Theory) When people get to choose how they engage, they show up with more agency. Autonomy isn’t about letting go of structure - it’s about giving room to opt in. Try this: 🔷 Let people set their own work cadence - async, deep focus, or collaborative sprints 🔷 Ask: “What support looks best for you right now?” *** 2. Create Micro-Moments of Connection (Broaden-and-Build Theory) We don’t need hour-long one-on-ones to build trust. A genuine check-in. A name spoken with intention. That’s the glue. Try this: 🔷 Pause to celebrate effort, not just outcomes - a quick voice note, a public thank-you 🔷 Remember small details - a kid’s soccer game, a partner’s surgery - and follow up *** 3. Signal Safety in Small Ways (Polyvagal Theory) The nervous system responds before the intellect does. Safety is felt first. And safe leaders create brave spaces. Try this: 🔷 Ask: “Is now a good time?” before giving feedback or asking for decisions 🔷 Stay calm and present, especially when tensions rise - your tone sets the tone *** 4. Design for Anticipatory Joy (Affective Forecasting) The brain lights up for what’s coming next. The ritual at the door gave students a reason to show up smiling. Try this: 🔷 Drop a kind, unexpected message in the team chat - just because 🔷 Celebrate mundane milestones - 100 days in the role, 50th client call, 1st brave no *** 5. Anchor Culture in Meaningful Rituals (Harvard Research on Rituals) Rituals are memory-makers. They codify values in action - they say, this is who we are. Try this: 🔷 End each quarter with storytelling: what stretched us? what did we learn? 🔷 Welcome new hires not with logistics, but with a story of your team's "why" *** This teacher didn’t redesign the curriculum. She redesigned how people enter the day. You don’t need a big title to lead like that - Just the courage to meet people at the door. 💬 What’s one ritual you’ve seen shift the energy of a space - or want to create where you work? 🔁 Repost to inspire kind actions in the workplace. 🔔 Follow Bhavna Toor for more on conscious leadership.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝟵𝟬-𝟭𝟬 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗼𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 New York Football Giants head coach, John Harbaugh, describes an interesting approach to giving players feedback on their strengths and weaknesses. Rather than focusing heavily on what athletes need to improve, he advocates spending far more time communicating the things they already do exceptionally well, roughly 90%, and much less time on the 10% that needs development. This approach speaks to a fundamental psychological need, which is the need to feel competent. Athletes, like all people, have a need to feel capable and effective in meeting the demands placed upon them. When we recognise and reinforce what someone is doing well, we can help build their sense of competence, confidence, and motivation. This aligns closely with Self-Determination Theory, which highlights the importance of fulfilling basic psychological needs in supporting well-being, self-motivation and positive social development (Ryan & Deci, 2000). 𝗖𝗼𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗙𝘂𝗹𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗡𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀 1️⃣Amorose (2007), Mageau and Vallerand (2003), and Reeve (2009) reported that coaches could relinquish control and give more control to the athletes. That is, where possible, allow them to have input into the structure of training, match preparations, or travel arrangements. 2️⃣ Provide leadership and initiative opportunities. 3️⃣ Matosic et al. (2016) reported that coaches should encourage athletes to set self-improvement goals. 4️⃣ Challenge the skills and abilities of athletes by creating drills that are difficult, but attainable with maximum effort (Amorose, 2007). 5️⃣ Design meaningful, interesting, and skill-building drills, in addition to explaining the rationale for a specific drill to their athletes (Berntsen & Kristiansen, 2019) 6️⃣ Provide choice within limits 7️⃣ Offer constructive feedback that relates to aspects of behaviour that an athlete can control (Berntsen & Kristiansen, 2019). 8️⃣ Develop the coach-athlete relationship 9️⃣ Promote positive relationships with athletes in the same team 🔟 Listen to athletes and acknowledge the feelings of athletes 1️⃣1️⃣ Involve parents, especially among younger athletes. Perhaps the lesson for coaches, leaders and educators is simple, if we want people to improve, we shouldn't only tell them what they need to fix. We should make sure they know what they're already doing well and regularly remind them of this. (🎥: Coach and Coordinator Network)

🌊 The Calm That Destroys: Why Success Numbs Leaders Most leadership failures don’t look like chaos. They look calm. That realization changed how I see teams — because the most dangerous dysfunctions aren’t loud. They’re quiet. They begin when leaders stop feeling the pain that built their success. This cartoon captures it perfectly: Leaders on a sinking boat, shouting “Keep rowing!” while water pours in. It’s funny at first — until you realize how often it happens in real life. Teams are drowning in warning signs, and leadership keeps asking for more performance. I’ve seen it up close — and I’ve done it myself. Convincing myself things were fine because the numbers said so. That’s the silent drift of leadership: the higher you rise, the softer the feedback gets. By the time real problems reach you, they’ve been polished into dashboards and KPIs. → “Burnout” becomes resource allocation → “Frustration” becomes attrition risk → “Doubt” becomes low engagement And slowly, empathy gets replaced by efficiency. You start managing signals instead of people. But systems don’t feel pressure. People do. And when people stop believing their discomfort matters, they stop speaking up. That’s when organizations begin to sink — quietly, predictably, and avoidably. How I Try to Stay Connected ✅ Create unfiltered listening loops — find people who’ll tell you what others won’t. ✅ Translate metrics into meaning — ask, “What’s behind this number?” before reacting. ✅ Name the invisible — surface emotions no one’s tracking. ✅ Reward truth-telling, not compliance — make honesty safer than silence. Because leadership isn’t about fixing faster — it’s about feeling sooner. The moment you stop feeling the current, you lose the ability to steer. That’s what this cartoon really exposes: Not incompetence — but disconnection. A quiet culture of “it’s fine” that numbs awareness until it’s too late. So here’s what I keep asking myself: When data tells us everything, how do we still feel what matters? #Leadership #EmotionalIntelligence #OrganizationalPsychology #PeopleFirst #Management #FutureOfWork

Humans keep inventing new ways to "measure" how busy software teams are, and then mistaking them for how good the work is. Lines of code counted how much got typed, never whether it should exist. Story points were meant to size effort, then quietly turned into a quota. Pull requests tell you something changed, not whether the change was worth making. Each one started as a proxy for value and ended up as the thing itself, optimized until it stopped meaning anything. Now we keep seeing "tokens consumed" reported like an accomplishment. It is the strangest one yet, because it is a cost. A team burning nine billion tokens has told you how much compute it spent, not whether anything got better, shipped, or used (imagine bragging about your electricity bill.) The moment a metric becomes a target, it stops describing reality and starts distorting it. AI did not break this. It just attached a meter to it. The only number that has ever mattered is whether the work in front of a user got better. That one is still annoyingly hard to count. ↓ 𝗜𝗳 𝗔𝗜 𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗷𝗼𝗯, 𝗺𝘆 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘄𝘀𝗹𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘆𝗼𝘂. 𝗜 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗳𝗹𝗼𝘄𝘀, 𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗹𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁’𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗹𝗱: https://lnkd.in/dbf74Y9E