A startup is usually described as a new company searching for a scalable business model. That definition is useful, but after building companies for several years, I have come to see a startup as something more personal and more complicated: a startup is a theory about human behavior.
Every product contains an assumption about what people will do when they are given a different choice. Every sales strategy assumes that somebody will trust a new company enough to change an established habit. Every compensation plan assumes that certain incentives will encourage better performance. Every partnership assumes that the parties will continue to act with integrity after their interests begin to diverge. Even company culture is a theory about how people will behave when nobody is watching and when pressure makes the convenient decision different from the right one.
Building companies has exposed me to more varieties of human behavior than I expected when I started. I have learned what it means to trust people, and I have also learned when trust needs to be supported by verification. I have encountered loyalty, integrity, betrayal, politics, ambition, insecurity and generosity, sometimes within the same relationship. I have learned that networking is not merely about knowing people, and that marketing is not merely about describing a product. Both are partly about perception: how people decide who is credible, what is important and which story deserves their attention.
This does not make me cynical about people. It has made me more attentive to patterns.
Situations do not excuse behavior, but they influence it
One of the most valuable courses I ever took was a twelve-week course in social psychology at Wesleyan University. It helped me understand that behavior does not come only from a person’s internal character. Roles, incentives, authority, uncertainty and the presence of other people can significantly affect what someone does.
The Stanford Prison Experiment became famous because participants assigned to act as guards and prisoners appeared to absorb their roles, with some guards becoming abusive and some prisoners becoming distressed or submissive. The experiment was stopped after only six days.
However, the simple version of that story has since been seriously challenged. Later researchers found that the guards received stronger instructions than the popular account suggested, that the researchers themselves influenced the environment and that not every participant behaved in the same way. This makes the lesson more useful, not less useful. People do not automatically become whatever role they receive, but leadership, expectations and institutional permission can encourage certain behavior while suppressing other possibilities.
The question for a founder is therefore not only, “Did I hire a good person?” It is also, “What behavior is this environment teaching that person?”
If a company rewards people who hide bad news until the last moment, employees will learn to conceal problems. If the most political employee receives the most influence, people will learn that politics is more valuable than performance. If leaders publicly preach integrity but privately excuse dishonesty when it produces revenue, the company has clearly communicated its real values.
People listen to what founders say, but they study what founders tolerate.
Another story discussed frequently in social psychology is the murder of Kitty Genovese in New York. The popular account claimed that thirty-eight witnesses watched or heard her being attacked and that nobody helped. Later investigations showed that this version was substantially overstated: fewer people directly witnessed the attacks, some did attempt to seek help and one person comforted her before she died.
Yet the research inspired by the case revealed something important about human behavior. When several people encounter an ambiguous emergency, responsibility can become diffused. Each person may assume that somebody else understands the situation better or will take action. The presence of more people can sometimes reduce an individual’s sense of personal responsibility.
The same pattern appears inside companies. When everybody is responsible, nobody may feel responsible. A problem may be visible to product, engineering, operations and customer service, while each team assumes another team will resolve it. Meetings can create the appearance of collective ownership while quietly removing individual accountability.
This is why every important outcome needs a clear owner. Collaboration matters, but responsibility must remain identifiable.
Hiring is the search for patterns
As our ambition at Eazipay has increased, I have become much more intentional about the people I bring close to me and into the company. This has become more difficult because the company is changing rapidly. What I believed twelve months ago may no longer be sufficient for what we are trying to build now. The kind of person who succeeds at one stage may struggle at the next stage if they cannot grow with the company.
When I interview people, I do not usually spend most of my time conducting technical interviews. Other people can test technical competence more effectively. I am trying to identify patterns.
What has this person repeatedly chosen to do? What kind of problems attract their attention? When they describe a success, do they understand their own contribution, or do they claim the work of an entire team? When something failed, do they explain what they learned, or do they place responsibility everywhere except themselves? Have they remained somewhere long enough to produce an outcome? Does the evidence in their career support the identity they are presenting during the interview?
One impressive answer can be rehearsed. A pattern is harder to manufacture.
Before the interview, I also need to define the pattern I am seeking. If I do not know the kind of person the company needs, I may simply hire the person I find most charming, familiar or similar to myself. A founder should not ask vaguely whether a candidate is good. The better question is whether the candidate’s demonstrated behavior matches the responsibility, pressure and stage of the company.
Patterns are not destiny, and people can change. However, a startup usually has limited time and limited money with which to discover whether a person will become fundamentally different. Past behavior is not a perfect prediction, but it is more useful than hope unsupported by evidence.
Choices reveal what culture has built
The most revealing moment in a company is often when someone receives another choice.
What happens when an employee is offered more money elsewhere? What happens when a leader can hide a mistake without being discovered? What happens when meeting a target requires misleading a customer? What happens when loyalty becomes costly, or when the founder is no longer present to supervise the decision?
These moments reveal the difference between compliance and conviction. A person may behave correctly when there is no attractive alternative. Character becomes clearer when the wrong action offers an immediate advantage.
Founders cannot prevent people from ever receiving competing choices, nor should they try to control every decision. The objective is to build an environment in which people understand the mission, participate meaningfully in the value they create and know which principles cannot be traded for convenience. Ownership changes behavior, but ownership is more than giving someone shares. People behave like owners when they have information, responsibility, consequences and a genuine connection between their work and the company’s outcome.
A startup must be filled with ambitious and optimistic people, but ambition alone is dangerous. Ambition without character can produce manipulation. Optimism without evidence can become delusion. Loyalty without truth can become sycophancy. Intelligence without humility can make a person very effective at defending the wrong decision.
The task is to assemble people whose qualities correct and strengthen one another.
Culture is behavioral infrastructure
People often repeat the statement that culture eats strategy for breakfast. The expression has become so familiar that it is easy to miss what it means. Strategy describes what the company intends to do; culture influences what people repeatedly do when real life interferes with the strategy.
Culture is not the language written on a company website. It is the accumulated memory of what leaders reward, punish, celebrate and ignore.
If customer trust is truly important, the company must celebrate the employee who exposes a risk before it becomes a crisis, even when the discovery delays a launch. If collaboration matters, a leader should not receive an excellent performance score while withholding work required for another team’s outcome. If integrity matters, revenue produced through deception cannot be treated as good revenue.
The founder is always teaching, including when the founder says nothing. Every exception becomes a possible precedent, and every tolerated behavior tells the company what will probably be tolerated again.
This is why self-awareness is an operational skill. A founder’s emotional state can enter the company without permission. Fear can become excessive control. Insecurity can become intolerance of disagreement. Exhaustion can become delayed decisions. Personal favoritism can become organisational politics. The founder may believe that the problem belongs to the team when the team is actually reproducing the founder’s behavior.
As the company grows, I am discovering that I cannot rely only on intuition about people. Intuition is useful, but it must be converted into systems: clear ownership, written expectations, transparent rewards, appropriate controls, regular feedback and consequences that apply consistently. Trust is necessary, but good systems protect both the company and trustworthy people.
The product is also a behavioral hypothesis
The same thinking applies outside the company. Every product is making a prediction about customers.
Will an employer abandon a spreadsheet for structured payroll software? Will the employer trust a new company to move salary funds? Will an employee save consistently if the product makes progress visible? Will a business comply with regulation when compliance becomes simpler than avoidance? Will someone pay for prevention today when the cost of failure may not appear until next year?
The founder’s job is to turn these assumptions into experiments. What customers say matters, but what they repeatedly do matters more. Sign-ups, payments, referrals, retention and usage patterns reveal whether the company’s theory is becoming true.
Marketing also participates in this process because people do not judge products in isolation. They respond to reputation, association, stories and social proof. Intentional marketing helps the market perceive value that already exists, but perception cannot sustain a product that repeatedly disappoints customers. Marketing may earn the first trial; the experience determines whether trust compounds.
A company is people under conditions
I am becoming more ambitious about what we are building, and that ambition requires me to become more deliberate about human behavior. I have to think carefully about whom I hire, which incentives we create, what authority we give, what information people receive and which behaviors we permit to become normal.
A startup is not merely a collection of talented people. It is a collection of people operating under particular conditions while pursuing a shared outcome. Change the incentives, pressure, leadership or sense of ownership, and behavior may change with them.
This is not an argument for distrusting everybody. It is an argument for understanding that trust, character and systems must work together. We should hire for demonstrated patterns, build structures that make responsibility clear and create a culture in which ambition does not require people to surrender their integrity.
The product is a theory about what customers will do. The organisation is a theory about what employees and leaders will do. The culture is what happens as those theories are tested every day.
The founder’s responsibility is not merely to believe that people will behave well. It is to build a company in which good people can do their best work, poor behavior is discovered early and the choices rewarded by the organisation are consistent with the future the company claims it wants to create.
Leave a comment