How Evolving Leadership Powers Resilient Startups

In the world of startups, failure isn’t a surprise, as roughly 80% of startups collapse within the first 5 years of inception. While founders often blame markets, regulators or competitors, the data tells a different story. According to research from Noam Wasserman, 65% of high-potential startup failures aren’t about bad code or weak demand. They are about something much more human: conflict at the top.  The quiet truth Silicon Valley is yet to confront is that leadership, not product, is likely to kill a company. 

Vision Isn’t the Same as Navigation

Great founders often see things others can’t. They recognise market gaps, design bold products, and push through difficulties to launch industry-changing products. However, running a startup isn’t just about seeing the future; it’s about managing the present. This is quite difficult for these founders, as in the early days of a startup, the founder is often involved in everything. 

They are often the builder, marketer and recruiter. This means that every decision has to pass through them to see the light of day. In this environment, it’s easy to assume that the person who built the product is also the right person to lead the company forever, but this assumption rarely holds up when growth hits.

As a company scales, its needs change as what it takes to build a product is different from what it takes to build a team, a culture and an operation that can function without constant oversight. The founder may have the vision, but they may not be the best person to lead the company through its next phase. At this stage, the startup may no longer need a pioneer but a builder of systems. 

Uber: A Billion-Dollar Lesson In Founders’ Limits

One of the most high-profile examples of this dynamic was Uber under Travis Kalanick. As a founder, Kalanick drove the company’s rise, transforming how people thought about transportation. But behind the scenes, the leadership style that fueled Uber’s early success began to unravel. 

Reports of internal dysfunction, a toxic workplace culture and ethical missteps began to pile up. Eventually, Uber’s board decided the company could no longer scale under the same leadership that built it and in 2017, Kalanick was pressured to resign as CEO.

The takeaway isn’t that Kalanick wasn’t innovative or effective, but that a founder’s intensity, if left unchecked, can become a liability. Especially when the company enters a phase that requires different skills, what got Uber off the ground was not what is needed to operate sustainably. 

FTX: When Smart Founders Think Rules Don’t Apply

If Uber showed how founder behaviour can jeopardise growth, FTX showed how it can trigger catastrophic collapse. Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder and former CEO of the crypto exchange, was once hailed as a genius and a visionary, building the future of finance. His credentials, intelligence and philanthropic promises made him the face of responsible crypto innovation.

But behind the curtain was a deeply flawed leadership structure that blurred boundaries between FTX and its sister firm, Alameda Research. What happened next is now infamous. Misuse of customer funds, poor oversight, and lack of board governance. When the dust settled, FTX collapsed into one of the biggest scandals in crypto history, and Bankman-Fied was convicted on seven counts of fraud and conspiracy. 

The lesson isn’t just about legality but about unchecked founder authority. FTX didn’t fail due to market volatility or technical issues; instead, it failed because its leadership was insulated from accountability. This is a cautionary tale in Web3, where leadership often hides behind smart contracts and decentralisation. 

Both Uber and FTX remind us that the real failure point in most startups is not innovation, its introspection. Founders spend years studying markets, building products and mastering technology, yet rarely stop to examine their own leadership. Few ask the question that could save their company before it’s too late: Am I still the right person to lead this? 

That is the question that sits at the heart of a new book from veteran tech strategist Audrey Nesbitt. 

A Survival Guide for Founders Who Want to Get It Right

In her new book, Why You Shouldn’t Be the CEO (And Other Ways to Save Your Startup), Audrey Nesbitt doesn’t just highlight the problem; she maps out how to fix it. Drawing from over 25 years of experience in fintech, blockchain and AI, Nesbitt has seen the same pattern play out again and again. Founders with brilliant ideas who fail not because of their technology but from their inability to evolve as leaders. 

The book challenges one of Silicon Valley’s most persistent assumptions that the person who builds the product should automatically run the company. This approach may be practical in the early days when teams are lean and speed is everything. But once the company enters its growth phase, the founder’s role has to evolve or the company risks stalling or worse. 

Nesbitt outlines ten ways startups sabotage themselves, including skipping market validation, splitting equity too soon, and succumbing to perfectionism and micromanagement. These bring about inefficiency, as the market doesn’t care about technical elegance but about solving problems. 

Learning to step up or step aside

Nesbitt takes this to the next level with the five-point CEO self-assessment, which encourages founders to take a brutally honest look at themselves. It asks simple but revealing questions, such as what energises you? Where are you world-class? Do people follow your title or your vision? What do you want to be known for in five years?

These questions don’t just reveal whether a founder is capable of being CEO; they reveal whether they are the best person to lead their company right now. As Nesbitt puts it, True leadership is not about maintaining control. It is about creating the conditions for your company and its people to thrive, even if that means recognising when someone else might lead more effectively. 

She further introduces a framework, called the “Three Phases of Founder Evolution”, to help many early-stage startups make informed decisions. In the “Scrappy Startup” phase, hands on leadership makes sense, but once the company enters the “Awkward Adolescence” phase and beyond, founders must transition from doing everything to building systems that empower others to do it well. Without this shift, they become the very bottleneck holding the company back.

Leadership is a System, Not a Title 

Nesbitt’s message is clear: being a great founder does not always mean being a great CEO, and that is okay. The mistake is not realising that someone else might be better suited to scale what you’ve built and waiting too long to face that truth. 

In an era where Web3, AI and fintech are evolving faster than ever, leadership remains the constant that can’t be automated or tokenised. Smart contracts can’t fix misaligned teams, and decentralization does not eliminate the need for vision, clarity and accountability. 

Why You Shouldn’t Be the CEO is not a takedown; it’s a blueprint. Therefore, any founder serious about building something that lasts should take the nuggets in Nesbitt’s book as a manual and a much-needed wake-up call.