Today I want to talk about the team as the foundation of building a successful business. I like turning everything into processes, but this area is still the least formalized. So here is a set of thoughts, techniques, and principles that I have developed for myself.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, the team is the reason for success or for not achieving goals. Everyone says this, but you only understand it when you go through conscious management of this parameter yourself and see the results.

Founders regularly complain that there are no good people on the market. I consider this a victim mindset. Most often, the problem lies in the entrepreneur.

You can always build a team. It takes a lot of time. But you need to understand that this is one of the founder’s most important tasks. And this is exactly the case when garbage in, garbage out.

Hiring people is expensive! And hiring the wrong people is very expensive! That’s why you need a clear understanding of what exactly the employee will physically do, what benefit the business will receive from this hire, ideally expressed in money. For this, it’s useful to have a dashboard showing revenue and/or profit per employee. Hiring based on the principle “because everyone else has it” or “we’ll figure it out later” is unacceptable.

But there is the opposite situation. There is a category of entrepreneurs who are afraid to hire people. Afraid that their business might be stolen. I had one acquaintance like that. You cannot build a business from this paradigm. A business, not self-employment.

Invest time in describing the profile. Not with a template. Start with a blank page, imagining in detail what the person will be doing in the company. Be ready to explain every point and every word in this description. There should be no copy-pasted job postings. If you don’t know, you won’t be able to integrate a person into your system.

During interviews I ask myself the following questions: Do I like this person? Do I trust them? Do I see potential? Do they have enough energy to move actively? Do they have enough erudition to solve non-typical tasks?

To assess hard skills, I bring in professional acquaintances if we don’t yet have that expertise inside the company.

I am cautious about people who know how to speak beautifully and present themselves brightly. This is not a rule, but often they work poorly because they rely on good communication skills.

Always talk to previous employers. I once had a case where a person had not worked at all at the previous job listed on the resume. And there was another case when I ignored this rule, later began to understand that I had made a mistake, decided to check with the previous employer, and heard a lot of interesting things in response.

Invest time in proper onboarding.

During the work process, I listen to subtle signals. How comfortable do I feel with this person, how well do they understand my thoughts, how much are we on the same wavelength?

Talk through things that bother you. Even small ones. Do regular 1-on-1s and performance reviews.

There is always a choice: to spend energy on internal discussions within the team or to invest it in clients, products, efficient processes, etc. Where the result lies is obvious. I think the conclusion is also obvious.

Sometimes the company outgrows people’s qualifications. You have to form a new team. But more often, they themselves no longer feel comfortable and leave. “I joined when we were on the same level, and now so much bureaucracy…” The opposite happens too. This is normal, and you need to treat it calmly.

Hire slowly, fire unsuitable people quickly.

Parting with people is difficult; no one likes it. What helps here is asking yourself what is more important to you – to avoid discomfort or to achieve results. The interesting thing is that for people, too, changes most often turn out for the best.

During separation, a useful tool is an exit interview. You learn a lot about yourself and the company. And some pleasant things too.

There are many approaches to creating a strategy. There are even more frameworks and various models used in this process. When you start applying all of this to a startup or a small/medium business, you realize that you could spend a full year developing a strategy if you follow everything “by the book.” That’s why many business owners stop approaching this task at all.

After studying many books, articles, courses, and gaining experience in building strategies for my own businesses and those where I invest and mentor, I’ve identified several types of strategy creation.

Startup

Here, depending on the stage, strategy comes down to actions aimed at identifying a problem worth solving, then creating a product to address that problem, finding product/market fit in a market large enough for the founder’s ambitions, and after achieving that – finding channels through which it can be scaled.

Frequent mistakes I come across:

1. Building a product without understanding customer tasks – how frequent, important, or painful they are. This often happens with technical specialists. As a result, you get what Y Combinator calls “a solution in search of a problem.”
2. Not calculating a financial model, which leads to a situation where the unit economics may not work even on paper.
3. Skipping over product/market fit validation straight to scaling. “We built a product and now we’re looking for investment to scale marketing…” But have you made any sales at all? And it turns out – no.
4. Ignoring competitors. It’s important to understand that:

• Competitors are not necessarily companies doing the same or similar thing. Competitors can perform the same job in a different way. For example, for the job “spend time with family,” watching a movie, taking a trip, or going on an excursion can all be competing options.
• Direct competitors should exist. In rare cases when they don’t, it’s a bad sign – the product might not be needed, the economics may not work, or the market might be too small.

Business

A business also needs to understand which stage of the lifecycle it is in, and what ambitions and goals the founders have. Depending on that, the strategy may focus on one of the following areas or a combination of them.

1. Survival.

Here, strategy comes down to crisis-management techniques: cost optimization, shutting down unprofitable lines of business, reallocating resources, sometimes hands-on management, and other similar measures. The business needs to survive and reach a stable condition before thinking about what to do next.

2. Stable growth.

Here, strategy is about continuing to do what already works well. This is done through:

• Setting operational goals for revenue, profit, and equity.
• Then, using reverse planning to determine how much product to produce, how many sales are needed, what marketing should look like, how many and what types of employees must be hired, and what management system needs to be built.
• Then planning which development projects must be launched to achieve this.
• After that, building a financial plan and making sure the numbers add up.

3. Searching for a new business model, new markets, or both.

This becomes necessary when looking for new sources of growth or, conversely, during a crisis. Here you need to:

• Dive deep into customer and market research.
• Formulate different strategic alternatives: key business logics, target audiences, product strategy, ways of interacting with customers, marketing channels, monetization models, key processes and partners.
• Evaluate the alternatives based on financial efficiency, their ability to meet the goal, resource and competency availability, and risk level.
• Make a decision.

You must approach this very flexibly, like a startup. New models should be tested before being scaled.

4. Solving internal problems and bringing order.

This becomes necessary when the business is growing well, but to reach the next level, it needs to create a management system and put the right people into all necessary roles. This is usually done in combination with point 2, but in this case the focus is on structuring the company.

Conclusion

Strategy is not a universal template and not a one-time exercise.

It’s a way of thinking that starts with an honest answer to a simple question: where is the business right now, and what actually matters at this stage?

Problems begin when a company tries to apply the wrong type of strategy to the wrong situation:

scaling without product–market fit, optimizing processes while the model itself is broken, or searching for new markets when basic structure is missing.

A good strategy doesn’t make the future predictable.

But it does make decisions more grounded, trade-offs clearer, and progress more intentional.

And that, in practice, is what allows businesses to grow – step by step, without losing direction.

Here I present my experience in strategizing and the results of studying theoretical research on this topic. Both matter. A scientist observes the physical world, models it, and develops more efficient concepts. An entrepreneur applies these concepts and transforms the physical world. This creates continuous cyclical development. I stand on the side of the entrepreneur and mentor, so I am primarily interested in practical application and achieving real results.

Why do we use the word “Strategizing”?

Because we see it as a process, not an end result. Because an entrepreneur must develop it personally, live through it, make decisions. And because it must have flexibility - the ability to be revisited. This is a subtle point, but it must be understood so as not to get stuck waiting for a train that has long departed. The world is changing very quickly; new inputs and insights appear constantly, so strategy must be continuously tested for validity. Is this really the direction I want to go? At the same time, you cannot jump from side to side every time – there must be a cycle (year–quarter), but also room to use emerging opportunities.

There are different schools of strategy.

Henry Mintzberg and his co-authors did very systematic work by summarizing and analyzing them in the book “Strategy Safari.” I will not go deep into a retelling here, but in short, the differences lie in planning vs. flexibility, instrumentality, and responsibility for developing and making key decisions. For example, there may be a situation where all strategic decisions are made by one entrepreneur intuitively (yes, this is also strategizing). And on the opposite side – a complex process of analyzing and synthesizing information about the market, competitors, trends, internal situation, developing scenario projections, identifying strategic alternatives, collective multi-step decision-making, developing functional plans, creating implementation roadmaps, budgeting, etc. As usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle. In my view, it strongly depends on the personality of the entrepreneur, the business lifecycle, the situation inside the company, and the market context. I will describe my own approach below…

There is an ongoing discussion about whether startups need Strategy.

By “startup,” I mean a project that creates a disruptive or sustaining innovation – not a copycat project. In my view, strategy becomes necessary at the stage when the idea is validated in the market and first sales appear. Yes, at the earliest stage it is better to use Lean Startup and Customer Development approaches – when you need to identify and validate a problem or an inefficiently performed important job, create a solution, confirm that it performs significantly better than existing alternatives. But then the world becomes huge – a multitude of customer segments, resulting from this: values, product requirements, pricing, communications, channels… You can move intuitively, but in my view it will be longer, more expensive, and possibly already too late. And intuition-based paths often work only for geniuses and often rely on luck. You can hope for it, but you shouldn’t rely on it.

Why else do startups need Strategizing?

They typically start very intuitively and reach a point where things begin to work: first clients appear, the team expands. Clients want more and more, requirements often conflict. There is confusion about what to prioritize, how to combine the incompatible, first frustrations appear, cash gaps may follow… The entrepreneur gets pulled into the daily routine of “patching holes.” But the main job of an entrepreneur is to think! And this ends up happening on a leftover basis – meaning it doesn’t happen at all. This is why my job is to ensure this time appears, that thinking happens during productive hours and regularly. As a result, focus emerges – clarity on what (or whom) we must let go, work becomes more predictable and meaningful.

What should strategy focus on?

Depending on the founders’ goals, business goals, market situation, competition, trends, and internal context, strategy may focus on:

1. Competing for the customer,
2. Competing with competitors,
3. Internal efficiency,
4. Quickly leveraging emerging opportunities. Often this becomes a mix, but focus always exists, and it must be considered throughout strategizing.

Why should Strategizing be done by the entrepreneur and team, not by an external consultant or mentor?

I’ve gone through strategy development with consultants several times. Usually everything looks logical and beautiful – and then goes into a drawer. In my view this happens because you didn’t “live through the information,” you didn’t pass it through your personal filter, and the conclusions, while logical, may not align with your personal goals and values. Moreover, if you do the work yourself, you gain a much deeper understanding of the market and customers, you invest your scarce time resource, and you essentially catch the “strategizing virus,” commit to it, and start executing.

A strategy needs both rigid and flexible parts. We can define market boundaries (product and geographic), the target audience, and even the product. But there must always be room for experiments. We can test channels, communication messages. We track client feedback and new insights arise for the business model. This is one possible case; many others exist. What matters is understanding the principle of rigidity and flexibility in strategizing.

How does this work in our case?

It is important to note that you cannot create a full strategy during a strategic session. This is my conviction and experience. A strategy is calculated, understood, and matures over 2-3 months – and then continues to evolve as new inputs and market signals appear. A strategy session is where you can “sell” the idea to the team or use sessions as synchronization tools.

Below, I briefly outline one possible process of strategy development. Depending on the situation, the structure and format may vary significantly.

Partnership in business is essential – but also highly responsible.

It’s not something to rush into. And if you do enter a partnership, it’s crucial to do it consciously, discussing and documenting all terms in advance.

This document outlines a methodology that significantly reduces the risk of an unsuccessful partnership. The methodology is based on David Gage’s book “The Partnership Charter,” but filtered through my own experience, expanded, and adapted to our current realities.

I should clarify upfront: if you try to apply this methodology on your own, there is a high chance you will cut corners or overlook important issues.

That’s exactly what happened to me when my partner and I went through this process ourselves. I was already emotionally invested in the idea, we had begun executing it, and even though we identified several uncomfortable points while drafting the agreement, we ignored them. Some things we addressed only superficially. The goal was to “agree faster and get to work,” not to dive deep into potential risks.

Three years later, all those unresolved issues resurfaced, and we had to part ways.

That’s why I believe it’s far better to involve a third party. Someone who is not emotionally involved, who won’t allow you to smooth over the difficult parts, and who will ensure the agreement is fully thought through.

One more important note:

Here we are not discussing the legal structure of a partnership agreement, but its practical, real-life foundation – the things that co-founders must agree on before starting. All of this, of course, can later be incorporated into a legal document.

A few more important considerations:

1. It’s useful to repeat this process regularly – for example, once a year before a strategic planning session.
2. At the beginning, it’s wise to include vesting, ideally for 3-4 years. Otherwise, if one founder leaves early, the remaining team members lose motivation.

Define the valuation and the buyout process in advance, in case a founder exits, especially prematurely.

And for those who love practical tools, there is also a questionnaire that helps estimate equity distribution – Co-Founder Equity Calculator.

One of my important roles is a Professional Business Partner.

Professional means understanding how the system works and being able to manage it from that understanding.

Why is this important to me?

First, you cannot build something big alone.

Which means I need Partnership. I am building a large, long-term company – which means I need to understand how to be a professional Partner and Co-owner.

Second, co-founder conflict is one of the most common reasons businesses fall apart.

At some point I began thinking: what does it actually mean to be a partner?

I studied literature, took a course, spoke with experts and realized: partnership is work. Often invisible, underestimated, and therefore executed unprofessionally.

From this I decided that I want to be the one responsible for this part in my businesses. I developed a system that I am now testing and improving.

Today I will walk through the main points; over time I will expand them in more detail.

A few important theses

Every partnership is unique. Partners differ, values differ, and the situation is always in motion. Anything built on human relationships is, by definition, a complex system.

Trust is the foundation of partnership. Behind it always stand fears, including the desire for safety.

Any long-term partnership must be built on principles of Fairness. There are no clear formulas here, but it is important that each partner feels it.

At the “honeymoon” stage everything is wonderful. But businesses always go through crises. If you want to play the long game, build the foundation in advance.

Now to the SYSTEM.

The starting point

Everything begins with understanding yourself and building your personal strategy => From this comes the understanding of what important Work you want to do and what your Role in it is!

For example, one of my insights is that I am not strong at early stages. But I love building systems and scaling.

Choosing partners

Forming your partnership position: auditing yourself using the three-capital model helps you understand what you lack and who you need beside you.

A good partner is someone with different resources or competencies, similar principles and values, and non-conflicting goals.

Important:
There are no perfect partners. Someone can be simply suitable for this stage.


Do not enter partnership out of fear. This is when you want “someone so it’s not scary,” not someone who actually strengthens the result.

It is useful to check psychological compatibility (PNCI, Clifton, Hogan) and typologies (Adizes, DISC, Power-Money, etc.). I myself have postponed this for now – waiting for calmer times.

Alignment
Discuss personal characteristics, contributions, what shared Work you want to build, what Goals you want to achieve and when, and how you will act.

Fix zones of responsibility, authority, and communication format. There is a good exercise for this.

Distribute equity. There are methodologies that help distribute it objectively – not “50/50 because it’s awkward.” Combinations may vary: participation in profits, losses and additional financing, participation in management, participation in company value.
I myself have reduced my share several times because it was the right thing to do.

And of course, a partnership agreement. Yes, it is not the most pleasant task. But it helps to understand people more deeply and test whether this person is “mine” or not.

Maintenance
Partnership is not a status but a process. Relationships cannot be “frozen”; they must be continually built.

Regular audits, strengthening rituals, conflict prevention, and crisis work – this is the foundation at this stage.

Completion
Any partnership either ends or transitions to a new level.
A systematic approach simply increases the chance that it becomes a new level, not an end.

And a small warning.
In all of this, it is important to understand what stage of the lifecycle your Work is in and select the appropriate tools. Otherwise, you may never launch the Work itself!)

The topic is huge; I have only outlined the contours. I will gradually dive deeper and write more.

And for now, subscribe to my Telegram channel – there I will share more practical content.

At some point, while working on the ELTEAM Builder presentation, I added one principle that was especially important for us: a partner must have skin in the game.

It sparked a lot of reactions. Some were skeptical, some ironic, and some clearly misunderstood the phrase. But the meaning behind it was very precise.

The concept comes from Nassim Taleb’s book “Skin in the Game.”

At its core, it’s about responsibility.

People who do not bear the negative consequences of their decisions tend to misjudge reality. On the other hand, the human brain works and learns far more effectively when it understands that poor decisions will have direct personal consequences.

This creates the right tension: a mix of upside and downside that leads to better judgment, deeper commitment, and more realistic decision-making.

That is exactly why we deliberately chose not to invest at the idea stage – even when ideas came from very strong people.

An entrepreneur must first go through their own “trial and error.” They need to invest time, emotional energy, and ideally their own money into the idea. Only then does real commitment appear – the kind that provides the right energy and later allows a founder to overcome inevitable obstacles.

But this principle applies to us as well. We also put our skin in the game.

Unlike consultants, we invest capital. Unlike classic business angels, we deeply immerse ourselves in the project and actively support founders as mentors, helping them reach tangible results.

I’ve written in more detail about the mentor’s role in strategizing and long-term business development in a separate article on vc.ru:

https://vc.ru/u/672807-lahmanov-evgeniy/245138-strategirovanie-kak-eto-rabotaet-dlya-startapov

A few years ago, I took a course on systems thinking. There we studied the definition of a successful system: one that satisfies the interests of all stakeholders. And stakeholders are all parties whose interests the system affects in one way or another.

A business, of course, is also a system. To consider it successful, you need to identify the stakeholders, understand their interests, and develop a strategy to satisfy those interests.

In reality, there are many stakeholders: through practical experience we learned that there are never fewer than 15, and you cannot satisfy all of them! Each has an interest, a preference, and an intention. And there may be more than one interest. Therefore, an entrepreneur must determine the most important stakeholders and focus efforts on them.

Now an example. Let’s take a B2B SaaS startup:

• Founder 1. Interest: building a business and selling it. Intention: working 24/7.

• Founder 2. Interest: working for pleasure and having a passion project. Preference: working 4–5 hours a day and spending the rest of the time with family, hobbies, etc.

• Top management (yes, sometimes you have to generalize). Interest: having a stable job. Intention: clearly fulfilling assigned tasks, showing initiative.

• CEO of the client company. Interest: increasing profit. Intention: managing efficiently.

• Client’s IT Director. Interest: developing professionally and building a career. Intention: showing initiative, implementing innovative technologies.

• Product user. Interest: working with a convenient interface to spend less time filling out data. Intention: sabotage or expressing dissatisfaction if the software works poorly.

• Client’s lawyer. Interest: avoiding risk. Intention: carefully reviewing the contract, nitpicking every comma.

• Tax inspector. Interest: receiving reports on time. Intention: issuing fines if there are violations.

• Competitor, raider, investor, etc.

I listed only a few stakeholders (in reality, you need to create a large table) so that the essence and the practical side are clear. What conclusions can we draw?

1. The founders’ interests conflict, which can destroy the business. This must be addressed.
2. B2B products are not only about increasing profit, improving efficiency, or reducing costs. You must also consider irrational interests such as the IT director’s personal ambitions.
3. A business affects the interests not only of customers, as is fashionable to promote now, but of a much wider circle of people. And this must definitely be considered in order to build a successful system.

I took this course at SHSM with Tseren Tserenov. I hope he won’t criticize my free interpretation of the concept too much.

The important thing is that the idea continues to live!