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.

Why Adrian Vanzyl Says No to Almost Every Startup Pitch

Most people assume a successful investor’s job is finding great companies. Adrian Vanzyl would argue the bigger part of the job is saying no. He does this over and over, to companies that look perfectly reasonable on paper. The math of venture investing makes this unavoidable. However, the discipline of doing it well is rarer than it should be.

This isn’t about pessimism or excessive caution. Instead, it’s about understanding what the job actually requires, and building a process that reflects that reality honestly.

Why the Base Rate Forces Constant Rejection

Venture investing runs on a brutal numerical reality. Most individual investments will underperform or fail outright. A small number of outsized winners have to carry the entire portfolio’s return. Given that structure, saying yes too often isn’t generous. It’s actually a failure of discipline that dilutes the few bets that matter most.

Consequently, a healthy investing process involves rejecting the overwhelming majority of opportunities that come through the door. This isn’t a sign that the market lacks good founders. Rather, it reflects the sheer volume of opportunities relative to the narrow slice that will actually justify real conviction.

The Danger of Saying Yes to Avoid Discomfort

Saying no is socially uncomfortable in a way that saying yes rarely is. Declining a founder who’s poured years into their company feels harsh, even when it’s the right call. As a result, some investors drift toward saying yes more often than their own judgment actually supports. They do this simply to avoid the discomfort of delivering bad news.

This pattern is easy to justify in the moment and costly over time. A portfolio built partly on avoided discomfort, rather than genuine conviction, ends up diluted. It fills up with investments that never had a strong thesis behind them in the first place. Notably, the discomfort of a difficult no is temporary, while the cost of a weak yes compounds for years.

How Adrian Vanzyl Thinks About a Good No

A good no isn’t simply a rejection. Instead, it’s a clear, honest explanation of why the fit isn’t there, delivered in a way that respects the founder’s time and effort. Vague, hedged rejections waste everyone’s time. They often leave founders more confused than if no explanation had been given at all.

Specificity matters here. Consider a no that says the market feels too early right now. That gives a founder something they can actually act on. By contrast, a vague no that says it’s just not quite right gives them nothing to work with. It often signals the investor didn’t engage seriously with the pitch in the first place.

Why Speed Matters Almost as Much as Honesty

Founders operate on limited runway and can’t afford to wait indefinitely for a decision that was never going to be a yes. An investor who strings a founder along imposes a real cost on that founder’s fundraising timeline. This holds true whether the delay comes from genuine indecision or simple avoidance.

A fast no is almost always kinder than a slow one, even though it doesn’t always feel that way to deliver. Founders consistently report valuing investors who decide quickly and communicate clearly. This holds even when the answer disappoints them, over investors who take weeks to arrive at the same conclusion.

The Long-Term Value of Saying No Well

How an investor handles rejection shapes their reputation across an entire startup ecosystem. Often, this matters more than their occasional big wins do. Founders talk to each other constantly, and word about how an investor treats people during a pass travels just as fast as word about a great outcome.

An investor known for clear, respectful, timely rejections builds a reputation that pays off well beyond any single deal. Founders who were once told no, and treated well in the process, often come back with the next company they build. They also refer other founders into that investor’s pipeline. A careless or dismissive no does the opposite, quietly, over years.

What This Means for Investors Evaluating Deals

For any investor building a real process, the practical discipline is straightforward, even if it’s uncomfortable to practice consistently. Expect to say no far more often than yes, and treat that as healthy rather than as a failure. Make the no specific enough that it’s actually useful. And deliver it quickly, since a fast, honest rejection respects a founder’s time in a way a slow, vague one never can.

That’s the standard Adrian Vanzyl applies to every pass. He understands that how he says no shapes his reputation just as much as any single yes ever could.