The founder’s taste eventually becomes the company’s ceiling.
I do not mean taste merely in the aesthetic sense, although design is an important part of it. I mean the founder’s ability to recognise what is excellent, what is merely acceptable and what should never have been allowed to reach a customer. Taste is reflected in design, hiring, writing, service, product decisions and the quality of execution the organisation considers normal.
What the founder repeatedly tolerates gradually becomes the company’s standard.
This is a difficult subject because founders can easily misuse the language of standards. A founder can describe every personal preference as excellence, interfere with work they do not fully understand and become the approval point for every minor decision. That is not the kind of taste I am describing. A company cannot grow if every social-media post, product screen, customer email and hiring decision must wait for the founder’s personal approval.
The real task is harder. The founder must communicate a standard clearly enough that people can reproduce it without supervision, while remaining attentive enough to correct the organisation when its output begins to fall beneath that standard.
The goal is not to make everybody imitate the founder’s preferences. The goal is to build a company that knows what good work looks like.
Design communicates before the company speaks
I like good design. I like clean design, and for many years I have paid close attention to improving the quality of design within our business. Great design gives me an impression of excellence, progress and seriousness. Before I read an explanation or speak to anyone on the team, the care visible in a product or communication tells me something about the organisation that produced it.
That is my personal opinion, but it has practical consequences for how I think about our company. A cluttered interface may indicate that the product team has not decided what matters most. Inconsistent language may show that the company has not developed a clear way of explaining itself. A poorly written message may create doubt about the care with which the underlying service is delivered. These signals are not always conclusive, but customers notice them, even when they cannot explain precisely what is wrong.
This matters particularly for a company handling payroll, compliance and money. A customer who encounters careless spelling, confusing workflows or inconsistent instructions does not neatly separate those experiences from the reliability of the financial service. The customer may reasonably wonder whether the same lack of attention exists in calculations, remittances, security and record-keeping.
Design is therefore not decoration added after the serious work has been completed. It is part of how the serious work becomes understandable and trustworthy.
Our business currently operates in Nigeria, and we are looking towards expansion. As we enter new markets, the standard cannot be that our work is good enough for where we started. The product will be compared with the best products customers already use, wherever those products were built. A customer does not lower their expectations because a company is African. They compare the experience with the cleanest banking application, the simplest workplace tool and the most reliable digital service already on their phone.
If we intend to compete globally, our taste must become global before our distribution does.
Taste is the quality of what you notice
People sometimes think good taste is mysterious: either someone has it naturally or they do not. I think taste can be developed because it is partly the quality of what a person has learned to notice.
When you study excellent products, you begin to notice unnecessary steps. When you read strong writing, you recognise vague language more quickly. When you work with exceptional people, you become less impressed by activity that produces no meaningful outcome. When you experience outstanding service, you understand that speed alone is insufficient if the customer still feels uncertain or uncared for.
The founder’s attention teaches the company what deserves attention. If the founder consistently notices superficial mistakes but ignores structural ones, the organisation will learn to polish appearances while leaving deeper problems unresolved. If the founder celebrates speed without asking about reliability, people will learn to ship quickly and allow customers to absorb the consequences. If the founder praises effort while avoiding difficult conversations about results, busyness will become a substitute for performance.
Taste is therefore not simply the ability to say, “I don’t like this.” A useful standard must explain what is wrong, why it matters and what better work would achieve. Otherwise, the team is left trying to predict the founder’s mood instead of developing independent judgment.
When I give feedback, especially on something critical, I try to explain the reason for the correction. The point is not merely that I would have designed or written it differently. The point is that a particular choice may weaken trust, obscure the message, create friction for customers or communicate something inconsistent with who we are trying to become.
That explanation is what converts personal taste into organisational knowledge.
What the founder allows defines the company
I do not ask to see every post before it is published, every piece of writing before it is shared or every design before it reaches production. That would make me a bottleneck, and it would prevent the people we hired from developing the confidence and judgment required to lead their work.
However, when I encounter something, I pay attention to it. If I come across a post whose writing falls below our standard, a design that does not communicate clearly or a customer interaction that contradicts our values, I will usually give feedback. The team may not always need to change a minor item that has already gone out, but they should understand how I saw it and why I considered it important.
To me, what I knowingly allow begins to define me and the company I lead. Silence communicates tolerance. If leaders repeatedly observe poor work and say nothing, the organisation eventually concludes that the work is acceptable, regardless of what the values written on the wall may say.
This does not require a founder to react dramatically to every imperfection. Not every error has equal weight, and a company that treats every small mistake as a crisis will create fear rather than excellence. People need room to learn, experiment and occasionally get things wrong.
But there is a difference between a mistake and a declining standard. A mistake becomes useful when it produces learning. A declining standard occurs when the same carelessness is repeatedly accepted until it becomes normal.
The founder must know which is which.
Standards need consequences
At Eazipay, there is a particular word we do not use. I will not mention the word here, but the rule matters because language shapes how people think, and the word represents a way of thinking that we do not want to normalise inside the company.
When we decided that the word should not be used, we also had to consider what would happen when someone used it. A standard without any consequence eventually becomes a suggestion, but the consequence also had to be proportionate. Suspending a person for using one word would be unreasonable, especially where the better objective is to teach a different habit of thought.
We therefore considered how it could become part of performance. If someone repeatedly uses the language after understanding why it is inconsistent with our culture, that pattern can affect the person’s performance assessment. One isolated mistake does not become a dramatic disciplinary event, but consistent disregard for an important standard cannot remain irrelevant.
This distinction matters in culture-building. Companies sometimes announce values without connecting them to hiring, promotion, performance, reward or exit decisions. They describe the culture they want, but all the actual incentives reward something else. Employees quickly learn that the presentation slides are ceremonial and that the real culture is revealed by what gets rewarded, ignored and punished.
If clarity matters, unclear work cannot consistently receive the same recognition as clear work. If collaboration matters, a leader who achieves an individual target by obstructing other teams cannot be celebrated as a top performer. If customer trust matters, an employee who hides a mistake that affects customers cannot be judged only by the revenue they generated.
Standards become culture when the organisation is willing to attach consequences to them.
Taste in hiring determines the company’s future capacity
The founder’s taste in people may be even more consequential than taste in product or design. Every person the company hires becomes a producer of decisions, relationships and future hires. A weak hiring standard does not create only one weak appointment; it can create an entire branch of the organisation that regards mediocrity as normal.
Founders sometimes hire people who make them comfortable rather than people who improve the company. A compliant person may feel easier to manage than an independent professional who asks difficult questions, but a growing company needs people whose judgment can be trusted when the founder is absent.
The relevant question is not whether the candidate speaks impressively or shares the founder’s personality. It is whether the person has demonstrated the pattern of thought, character and execution the company will need. Can they take responsibility for an outcome rather than merely complete assigned tasks? Can they disagree constructively? Can they maintain quality when nobody is watching? Will they recruit people who raise the standard again?
When the founder compromises repeatedly in hiring, the company’s ambitions may remain large while its actual capacity becomes small. Eventually, the strategy reaches the limit of the team’s ability to execute it.
Hiring the best people the company can afford is not simply an employment decision. It is one of the main ways a founder increases the organisation’s taste beyond their own.
Taste in writing is taste in thinking
I also pay attention to writing because unclear writing often reveals unclear thought. A company may have an excellent product, but if it cannot explain the product simply, customers may never understand why it matters. A leader may have an intelligent strategy, but if the team cannot understand the strategy well enough to act on it, its intelligence has little operational value.
Good business writing does not need to sound academic or sophisticated. It needs to carry complete meaning. It should tell the reader what is happening, why it matters, what must be done and, where necessary, who is responsible. Vague language permits vague ownership, and vague ownership is one of the quiet causes of poor execution.
The same principle applies to external communication. Words shape the customer’s expectation, and the company must be capable of fulfilling the promise its language creates. Marketing that sounds better than the product may produce an initial conversion, but it also creates disappointment at scale. Understatement, on the other hand, can prevent customers from recognising genuine value.
The company needs the taste to find language that is clear, compelling and true.
Service reveals the standard when something goes wrong
Taste in service is easiest to observe when the normal process fails. Almost every company can appear organised when the transaction is straightforward. The real standard emerges when money is delayed, a customer is confused, the technology behaves unexpectedly or responsibility falls between two teams.
Does the employee hide behind procedure, or take ownership of the outcome? Does the customer receive frequent and honest communication, or have to chase the company for information? Does the team solve the immediate complaint and investigate the underlying weakness, or close the ticket and wait for the same failure to affect someone else?
A founder’s response to these incidents teaches the organisation what service means. If the only concern is closing tickets quickly, the team will optimise for appearances. If the founder examines whether the customer’s confidence was restored and whether the system was improved, people learn that service includes both human care and operational correction.
Excellence is not the absence of all problems. It is the quality of the organisation’s response when problems reveal themselves.
High standards must become transferable
The danger in being highly particular is that the company can begin to depend on the founder’s eyes. Everyone waits for the founder to notice what is wrong, and quality falls whenever the founder is not involved. That is not a standard; it is surveillance.
The founder’s taste becomes useful only when it can be transferred. This requires examples, principles, review systems and leaders who understand the reasoning behind the standard. A design system can capture recurring visual choices. Writing guidelines can establish the language the company uses and avoids. Hiring scorecards can translate instinct into observable evidence. Service standards can explain the response expected when a customer is anxious or disappointed.
Critique should also develop people rather than merely correct output. If I revise every piece of work myself, the immediate result may improve while the team learns very little. If I can explain the principle, allow the owner to revise the work and then examine the result together, the organisation’s independent capacity grows.
Eventually, the team should produce work that exceeds the founder’s taste. Designers should see possibilities I cannot see. Writers should express the company’s ideas more clearly than I could. Engineering leaders should establish standards I am not technically capable of defining. Customer leaders should build systems of care that do not require my presence to create confidence.
If the quality of the company can never rise above the founder’s personal ability, then the founder has remained the ceiling.
Raise the ceiling before expanding the building
Expansion exposes standards. When a company enters another country, adds thousands of customers or hires rapidly, it does not automatically become better. It multiplies what it has already learned to tolerate.
If the design is confusing, expansion distributes confusion. If hiring is weak, growth gives weak managers larger teams. If the writing is unclear, more customers misunderstand the product. If service lacks ownership, scale creates more disappointed customers than the founder can personally reassure.
This is why the work of taste must begin before the company becomes large. The founder must continually raise their own exposure to excellent work, recruit people with stronger judgment and build mechanisms that preserve quality without centralising every decision.
For an African company preparing to compete internationally, this is especially important. We should not build to a lower standard and hope that customers elsewhere will make an allowance for our origin. We should build products whose usefulness, reliability and clarity make their origin a source of pride rather than an excuse.
The founder’s taste becomes the company’s ceiling because people watch what the founder notices, celebrates and permits. But that ceiling does not have to remain fixed. The founder can keep learning. The team can develop better judgment. The organisation can establish standards that become more intelligent than any one person’s preferences.
My responsibility is not to inspect everything. It is to ensure that excellence is understood, that carelessness does not quietly become normal and that the people we trust with the company eventually develop taste greater than mine.
That is when the founder stops being the final judge of quality and becomes the person who built a company capable of recognising excellence for itself.
Leave a comment