The Inventors Paradox
All startups begin as a spark—an idea that's usually the brainchild of an inventor, often because of some really annoying problem they require to be solved in this world. I've yet to meet an inventor who wasn't extremely cool and extremely annoying, but more importantly, indispensable in the genesis of any disruptive business, founding teams often don't talk about it, but from what I've seen, it's usually a single person who nails the concept that sets everything in motion.
As a startup matures, particularly as it transitions from seed stages through Series A and towards Series B, the very qualities that make inventors invaluable can start to clash with the company’s evolving needs. This phase of growth is critical, demanding a shift from pure innovation to structured execution and scaling. The transition can be painful, very very painful, often marked by:
"Inventor’s Paradox": the inventor who catalyzes a startup’s birth might inadvertently hinder its maturation.
See, during a startup's nascent stages, inventors thrive, you're in fluid, dynamic environments where creativity flows freely. It's FUN and their disruptive thinking and restless drive to innovate are LITERALLY required for establishing a company's unique value prop and market foothold. However, as the business approaches significance, the focus inevitably shifts towards scalability, operational efficiency, and precise market alignment—areas that may not jell with an inventor's natural strengths.
Transition Challenges:
An inventor's constant push for new ideas can disrupt the streamlined focus required for meticulously refining the core product and aligning it with customer needs. As startups approach Series A and B rounds, operational excellence becomes crucial. As professional management join and structures prioritize execution and growth, inventors often attempt to retain influence, leading to conflicts with the emerging operational leadership.
It's hard to understate how inventors often have a profound emotional attachment to their original vision, making them resistant to changes that are vital for scalability and appealing to risk-averse investors.
So you should probably kick them out once this starts happening.
If you are unable or unwilling to kick them out, consider:
Communication
I cannot state this enough: open, honest, vulnerable communication during this period is more important than ever. If you have not read Five Dysfunctions of a Team by Pat, get on it, now.
Strategic Role Adaptation: Leveraging the Inventor's Strengths
While professionalizing product management is SERIOUSLY crucial, effectively integrating inventors in a way that harnesses their strengths without hampering growth is equally important. This delicate balance can be achieved through strategic role adaptation and personal development opportunities. An inventor's continuous push for innovation WILL disrupt the streamlined focus required for product refinement and precise market alignment. If you are going to put them into a CPO type position (something I really don't recommend tbh) force strong and rigorous managers around them. Make sure they and everyone knows: the VP of Product isn't going to be the one that gets kicked out and that's that.
Innovation Leadership Roles:
I think a better option is probably something like this: new title, something like "Founder President" A no responsibilities title recognizing the foundational impact. Then give them budget, a voice, and an innovation lab. The best thing you can do is give inventors a tool to invent. Allow them to lead cutting-edge research and development initiatives, staying at the forefront of innovation while distancing them far, far, faaarr away from day-to-day operations.
Focus them on year 10 thru 15, not years 4 thu 8.
If this doesn't land, and they are unwilling or it feels wrong to transition into purely innovative roles, another approach is to invest in their development as managers.
This involves providing them with comprehensive training in management and leadership fundamentals. Programs like those offered by the Center for Creative Leadership (not an ad, but I do very much recommend them) can equip inventor types with the skills needed to grow into managerial roles. They have to be willing to do this, and this does still require them to step fully away from the business for at least a year while they are trained in management and the rigors of execution into scale.
It's very important to remember, the leadership style required from all leaders has hard breaking points, it breaks at:
15, 35, 75, 125, 200, 500, 3000 and 20,000 people.
My friend Andre has a fantastic framework for thinking about the founding dynamics, he believes to win, all of these are distinctly required, and I fully agree:
Inventor: literally a mf'ing magician.
Operators: Excelling in scaling businesses, managing operations efficiently, and typically end up driving growth between Series A and B, operators bring a focus on execution that balances inventors' creative impulses.
Builders: With a superpower in vision, builders bridge the gap between inventors and operators. They ensure the company's trajectory aligns with both the founding vision and market demands, mediating between the inventiveness of some of the founders and the operational needs that operator founders excel at.
As startups evolve from seed rounds to IPO-readiness, the transition from an inventor-driven culture to one dominated by operational excellence is an absolute nightmare, trust me, I literally know. Effective integration of inventors through strategic roles and continuous learning opportunities can transform potential conflicts into alignment of innovation and operational excellence.
If you can do this, you'll get to "optionality" faster than any other team has.
Please do note: this stuff is not easy, in fact, it's really really f'ing hard.
Lets save the inventors, they rock!
with love! :D