Skip to main content

Adrian Vanzyl

Why the First Ten Hires Matter More Than Founders Realize

Founders obsess over their own decisions, their own strategy, their own execution. Adrian Vanzyl thinks they’re often looking in the wrong place for what actually determines a company’s trajectory. After watching dozens of early-stage teams form, he’s noticed something consistent. The first ten hires shape a company’s culture and capability more durably than almost any decision the founders make directly.

This isn’t an argument that founders don’t matter. Instead, it’s a reminder that the earliest hiring decisions carry weight far beyond the roles being filled.

Why Early Hires Set the Cultural Baseline

Culture doesn’t get written down and adopted later. Instead, it gets established by the first people who actually do the work, day after day, before anyone formalizes anything. Consider how the fifth employee handles a mistake. Think about how the eighth employee treats a frustrated customer. Or notice how the third employee responds to disagreement with a founder. These moments become the informal template every future hire absorbs.

This matters because culture is far easier to establish early than to correct later. A company of fifty people with an entrenched bad habit faces a much harder fix than a company of eight catching the same habit before it calcifies. In short, the first ten hires aren’t just filling roles. They’re quietly writing the company’s unwritten rulebook.

The Mistake of Hiring for Skill Alone

Under pressure to move fast, many founders default to hiring purely for technical skill. This makes sense on the surface. A skilled engineer solves problems a mediocre one can’t. However, skill without cultural fit creates a specific, underappreciated risk in a small team. In a team this size, one person’s behavior has an outsized effect on everyone around them.

A brilliant but toxic early hire does more damage in a ten-person company than the same person would in a thousand-person one. After all, there’s no layer of management to absorb the friction, and no critical mass of culture strong enough to dilute a bad influence. Evaluating early hires on both dimensions together, rather than treating skill as a gate and culture as an afterthought, tends to prevent this exact problem.

Why Diversity of Thought Matters More Than It Seems

Early teams often form around similarity. Founders naturally recruit from their own networks. As a result, these networks tend to produce people who think alike, share blind spots, and reinforce each other’s assumptions rather than challenge them. This feels comfortable and moves fast in the short term. It’s also a quiet liability.

A team that agrees too easily misses problems a more varied team would catch. Someone with a different professional background, a different way of approaching risk, or simply a different instinct for what customers actually want can surface issues the founding team never considered. Building that variety in deliberately, rather than defaulting to comfortable similarity, pays off precisely when the company hits its first real unexpected obstacle.

The Underrated Value of the First Skeptic

Most founders want early hires who believe in the mission completely. That instinct is understandable. Still, an early team made up entirely of true believers has a blind spot. Nobody asks the uncomfortable question before a decision gets made, only after it’s already gone wrong.

A thoughtful early skeptic, someone willing to push back respectfully and ask why a plan will actually work, often prevents costly mistakes long before they become visible externally. This isn’t the same as hiring someone negative or difficult. Rather, it’s hiring someone with enough independent judgment to disagree constructively when the situation calls for it.

Why Founders Should Slow Down on These Specific Hires

Every hire matters, but the first ten carry disproportionate weight. This happens precisely because there’s no existing culture to absorb a mistake. A bad hire at employee fifty gets diluted quickly, since forty-nine other people are already setting the tone. By contrast, a bad hire at employee five becomes a fifth of the entire company’s daily behavior and attitude.

This is exactly why rushing these specific hires under growth pressure tends to backfire. The time saved by filling a role quickly is often repaid many times over in the cultural repair work needed later. That repair only becomes necessary once a poor fit has already shaped how the rest of the team operates.

What Adrian Vanzyl Believes This Means for Founders Building Their Early Team

For founders making these first critical hires, the practical takeaway is to treat them with more scrutiny, not less, even when the pressure to move fast feels intense. Evaluate cultural fit and skill together, not sequentially. Deliberately build in perspectives that differ from the founding team’s own. And value a thoughtful skeptic as much as an enthusiastic believer.

That’s the discipline Adrian Vanzyl encourages every founder to apply, well before headcount pressure makes it tempting to skip.

What Adrian Vanzyl Learned Building Teams Across Three Continents

Most leadership advice assumes a single cultural context. Adrian Vanzyl never had that luxury. Over a career spanning the US, Asia, and Australia, he’s built and managed teams across dramatically different work cultures. As a result, he’s developed a clear view on a question most leaders never ask directly. Does good management actually look the same everywhere?

His answer is no. However, it’s a more useful no than it first sounds.

Why Management Style Doesn’t Travel Automatically

A management approach that works well in one country can quietly fail in another. This happens even when the underlying company values stay identical. Direct, blunt feedback might read as honest and efficient in one culture. In another, the same feedback might feel disrespectful or even alarming, regardless of intent.

This isn’t really about right and wrong. Instead, it’s about legibility. A manager’s signal only works if the team can actually read it correctly. Consequently, the same words, delivered the same way, can produce completely different outcomes. It depends on where a team sits and what it’s used to.

How Adrian Vanzyl Approaches the Mistake of Exporting a Single Playbook

A common mistake among leaders scaling across borders is exporting one culture’s playbook wholesale into a new market. This usually happens with good intentions. A leadership style worked well at headquarters, so naturally it should work everywhere else too.

In practice, though, that assumption breaks down quickly. This pattern shows up again and again for leaders scaling across companies and regions. A rigid, one-size-fits-all management style tends to produce quiet disengagement rather than open conflict. Employees rarely say the approach isn’t working. Instead, they simply stop bringing their full effort. As a result, the damage shows up months later in retention numbers, rather than in any single dramatic incident.

Why Listening Has to Come Before Adapting

The instinct to fix this problem often leads leaders toward research. They read about a country’s business culture, study its norms, and prepare accordingly. That’s a reasonable start, but it’s incomplete on its own. Cultural generalizations, however well researched, can’t substitute for listening to the specific people on a specific team.

Direct conversation, rather than secondhand cultural summaries, tends to be the more reliable guide. A generalization about how one culture handles conflict says very little about how a particular team actually prefers to handle it. After all, every team carries its own history and its own personalities. Real adaptation requires asking, not assuming. It also means staying open to being wrong about an initial read.

The Real Skill Is Translation, Not Imitation

There’s a tempting but flawed alternative to the export-a-playbook mistake. Some leaders try to fully imitate local norms instead, dropping their own instincts entirely to blend in. This tends to backfire just as often. Teams can usually tell when a leader is performing a culture rather than genuinely engaging with it. Consequently, the attempt often reads as less authentic than simply being direct about the adjustment being made.

The more durable skill is translation rather than imitation. Specifically, that means keeping your core values and standards consistent, while genuinely changing how those values get communicated and enforced. The substance stays constant, even as the delivery adapts.

What Consistency Across Cultures Actually Requires

Consistency doesn’t mean identical behavior everywhere. Rather, it means identical underlying standards, expressed through locally legible language and behavior. Consider a leader who holds every team to the same bar for quality and accountability, while adjusting how that bar gets communicated. That leader is being genuinely consistent. By contrast, a leader who insists on identical communication style everywhere, regardless of how it lands, is confusing consistency with rigidity.

This distinction matters enormously when scaling a company across borders. Teams notice quickly whether standards are actually being held evenly, even when communication styles differ. What erodes trust isn’t different delivery. Rather, it’s different substance disguised as fairness.

Why This Matters Beyond International Companies

Even founders building a single-market company benefit from this lesson. After all, most growing teams eventually include people from different backgrounds, even within one country. The core skill, adjusting delivery while holding the underlying standard fixed, applies just as much to a diverse local team. It matters just as much for an operation spread across three continents.

What This Means for Leaders Scaling Right Now

For any leader building a team beyond their own cultural default, the practical takeaway is straightforward. Research helps, but it’s only a starting point. Real understanding comes from direct conversation with the actual people on the actual team. Hold your standards steady, and let the delivery flex to fit.

That’s the balance Adrian Vanzyl has spent decades calibrating, one team and one market at a time. It’s also a balance any leader can apply, regardless of how many borders their team happens to cross.