Navigating Growth,
Strengthening Foundations

Growth brings challenges for organisations and founders, often leading to overwhelm and stress. We help you make sense of these emerging complexities and plot a path to sustained success. We help you stay sane whilst you scale

The problem

The problem

The problem

The journey from startup to scale-up can be tumultuous. Rapid growth, increasingly complex organisational challenges, and mounting pressures on founders and early-stage leaders can often leave companies feeling overwhelmed or stuck in a state of "storm and stress”.

This is a pivotal time for most founders.

The journey from startup to scale-up can be tumultuous. Rapid growth, increasingly complex organisational challenges, and mounting pressures on founders and early-stage leaders can often leave companies feeling overwhelmed or stuck in a state of "storm and stress”.

This is a pivotal time for most founders.

The market is awash with solutions that promise to resolve these challenges but in our data rich, digital enabled, AI enhanced world, the majority of these approaches view organisations through a mechanistic lens - offering solutions tailored to building and maintaining efficient systems; to oiling the machine.

While valuable, these solutions often fail to address the deeper people and relationship dynamics within an organisation.

Forje exists to address these relational dynamics, viewing organisations as networks of people—with all the complexity, unpredictability, and emotional intensity that are intrinsic to the human condition. A condition that can sometimes be driven to extremes under the pressure and stress experienced during moments of transition.

Forje exists to address these relational dynamics, viewing organisations as networks of people—with all the complexity, unpredictability, and emotional intensity that are intrinsic to the human condition. A condition that can sometimes be driven to extremes under the pressure and stress experienced during moments of transition.

Forje exists to address these relational dynamics, viewing organisations as networks of people—with all the complexity, unpredictability, and emotional intensity that are intrinsic to the human condition. A condition that can sometimes be driven to extremes under the pressure and stress experienced during moments of transition.

Our approach

Our approach

Our approach

We deeply understand the pressures of growth and transition, offering tailored support and strategies designed to build the resilience of individuals and the bonds between them. Our work focuses on addressing the causes of strain before they compromise the foundations of a thriving enterprise.

This support typically takes three forms.

We deeply understand the pressures of growth and transition, offering tailored support and strategies designed to build the resilience of individuals and the bonds between them. Our work focuses on addressing the causes of strain before they compromise the foundations of a thriving enterprise.

This support typically takes three forms.

Founder coaching

Acting as a trusted partner, we help founders make sense of their challenges, uncover blind spots, and approach complexity with clarity. This enables them to find fresh perspectives and chart new pathways forward. We help them stay sane while they scale.

Co-Founder coaching

Ensuring the resilience of co-founder relationships through regular, constructive conversations that address potential fault lines and misalignments. By focusing on trust, shared vision, and adaptability, we help partners strengthen the critical foundation their enterprise depends on.

Team coaching

Equipping senior teams to foster alignment, shared language, and cohesive behaviours. This work enables teams to function with agility and cohesion, equipping them to navigate the evolving challenges of scale whilst fostering personal and collective growth.

Testimonials

Testimonials

Testimonials

Testimonials

About the founder

About the founder

About the founder

James is a coach to founders, early-stage CEOs and their teams, and is particularly useful at moments of transition.

Prior to specialising as a coach, he had a senior international brand marketing and commercial career with The Coca-Cola Company and within Financial Services, in times of seismic change.

He has coached and consulted to leaders across many sectors with a particular focus on pharma, bio-tech, FMCG, financial and professional services.

He is well trained, with a modern and well-grounded approach, informed by his background, experience and rooted in extensive formal education not quackery or fads! He has applied this knowledge in a commercial context with teams, leaders and founders for many years.

He brings a point of view, provocations and stimulus, not just questions. An approach that appears to be very powerful in shifting perspectives, unclogging, and helping to build and maintain confidence in clients.

Blog

Blog

Explore our blog for insights on navigating the human complexities of growth, leadership, and team dynamics. We share strategies to build resilience, strengthen relationships, and sustain thriving enterprises under pressure.

5 min read

Why Founders Feel Fraudulent as They Grow

As founders navigate the early stages of building a company, they often thrive on the energy, creativity, and sheer determination required to get a business off the ground. However, as the company begins to grow, many founders find themselves facing an unexpected and unsettling experience: a creeping sense of inadequacy and self-doubt, commonly known as imposter syndrome. This feeling of being out of one’s depth often strikes during periods of significant growth when the explicit and implicit responsibilities and expectations placed on a founder increase dramatically. Despite founding the business, beating the odds to scale, and achieving notable successes, many founders feel as though they are frauds, unworthy of the position they hold and fearful of being “found out” at any moment. This experience is characterised by persistent self-doubt and a belief that one’s success is down to blag, luck, timing, or external factors rather than personal ability or competence. In my experience, you feel that sooner or later someone wiser and more experienced than you will see straight through your facade. These moments always remind me of the time my wife and I left the post-natal ward with our daughter for the first time, convinced that at any moment, someone would tap us on the shoulder and ask what we thought we were doing. For many founders, these feelings only intensify as the company grows, marking the moment — or more specifically, a series of moments — when the skills required to lead a small, scrappy startup need to be superseded by those needed to manage a rapidly scaling business. In the early days of a startup, founders are deeply involved in every aspect of the business. They have a hands-on role in operations, product development, marketing, and even customer service. They know the business inside out and rely heavily on their instincts and passion to drive it forward. Everyone knows everyone else; getting things done is often a matter of a Zoom call or leaning across the desk. But as the company scales and the dynamics of the organisation begin to shift, so too does the role of the founder. They must now navigate the need to maintain momentum in day-to-day operations while stepping back to focus on strategy, leadership, and building longer-term foundations. This transition can be uncomfortable and disorienting. Suddenly, founders are leading larger teams, making high-stakes decisions, and navigating areas of the business where they may lack expertise. They feel responsible not only for business performance but also for the livelihoods of those who have committed themselves to the business and even the broader network of dependents these individuals support. I often associate these moments with free-climbing — where halfway up, it may be as perilous to go down as it appears to continue climbing. Couple this sense of responsibility with the very real increase in the complexity of their roles, and it is hardly surprising that one may start to question their competence, feel unqualified, and even overwhelmed. Hypergrowth and the heightened pressure of raising capital and managing investor relationships only add to this burden. As the stakes increase, founders are thrust into new and unfamiliar territory. They may find themselves negotiating with high-profile investors, managing large sums of money, and being held accountable for growth targets that seem ever more difficult to reach. Founders are expected to take on new responsibilities and make decisions in areas they may not fully understand. This can lead to feelings of fraudulence, particularly when the stakes are high. The result can be a vicious cycle: the more successful the company becomes, the more the founder feels exposed. Despite external validation in the form of funding, top- and bottom-line success, raving (in a good way) clients, or media attention, internally, many founders feel they are simply not good enough to maintain the success they have achieved. Ironically, the more people rave, the more these feelings may grow. So what might you do? One of the most important steps is to ensure that founders are supported by a network of peers, advisors, or mentors who understand these dynamics. Spaces where they can openly explore these challenges — such as founder networks, coaching groups, or industry roundtables — allow them to process their experiences, make sense of the pressures they face, and gain valuable insights from others who have been through similar transitions. Recognising these feelings as a psychological defence mechanism rather than a reflection of reality is key. Founders should take an objective look at their strengths, development areas, and gaps where others may need to step in. Some skills may be worth developing, while others might be best delegated. Importantly, founders should ask themselves what role they are best placed to take on — because not every founder needs to become the CEO. In some cases, stepping into a different leadership role, such as Chief Product Officer or Executive Chair, might better align with their strengths and the company’s needs. A strong leadership team is critical to reducing the burden on founders and ensuring the company scales effectively. Many founders struggle with perfectionism, believing they must know everything and have all the answers. However, leadership is not about being the smartest person in the room — it’s about surrounding yourself with the right people and creating an environment where the team can work together to find solutions. Nurturing a group of individuals who can share the burden to the scaling business with you is both important and can be surprisingly rewarding. This may include bringing in a few new experienced heads, although I am increasingly drawn to the power of developing from within — either way this can allow the founder to focus on the areas where they add the most value. It also ensures that decisions are being made by those who are closest to the coalface. This shift from being the ‘doer’ to being the ‘enabler’ is a fundamental transition that many founders find challenging but ultimately liberating. It is also critical in ensuring that you don’t become trapped in the very thing you have built. It’s easy for founders to focus on what still needs to be done rather than acknowledging how far they’ve come. Taking the time to celebrate small wins along the way can help reinforce a sense of achievement and competence. Reframing success as a collective effort rather than a personal achievement can also alleviate the pressure to be perfect. Imposter syndrome may be a common experience for founders, especially as their businesses grow and their roles evolve, but it doesn’t have to hold them back. By acknowledging the reality of these feelings and implementing strategies to manage them, founders can find renewed confidence and perhaps see these feelings in part for what they are a sign the business is pushing into unchartered territory that often characterises growth.

5 min read

Why Founders Feel Fraudulent as They Grow

As founders navigate the early stages of building a company, they often thrive on the energy, creativity, and sheer determination required to get a business off the ground. However, as the company begins to grow, many founders find themselves facing an unexpected and unsettling experience: a creeping sense of inadequacy and self-doubt, commonly known as imposter syndrome. This feeling of being out of one’s depth often strikes during periods of significant growth when the explicit and implicit responsibilities and expectations placed on a founder increase dramatically. Despite founding the business, beating the odds to scale, and achieving notable successes, many founders feel as though they are frauds, unworthy of the position they hold and fearful of being “found out” at any moment. This experience is characterised by persistent self-doubt and a belief that one’s success is down to blag, luck, timing, or external factors rather than personal ability or competence. In my experience, you feel that sooner or later someone wiser and more experienced than you will see straight through your facade. These moments always remind me of the time my wife and I left the post-natal ward with our daughter for the first time, convinced that at any moment, someone would tap us on the shoulder and ask what we thought we were doing. For many founders, these feelings only intensify as the company grows, marking the moment — or more specifically, a series of moments — when the skills required to lead a small, scrappy startup need to be superseded by those needed to manage a rapidly scaling business. In the early days of a startup, founders are deeply involved in every aspect of the business. They have a hands-on role in operations, product development, marketing, and even customer service. They know the business inside out and rely heavily on their instincts and passion to drive it forward. Everyone knows everyone else; getting things done is often a matter of a Zoom call or leaning across the desk. But as the company scales and the dynamics of the organisation begin to shift, so too does the role of the founder. They must now navigate the need to maintain momentum in day-to-day operations while stepping back to focus on strategy, leadership, and building longer-term foundations. This transition can be uncomfortable and disorienting. Suddenly, founders are leading larger teams, making high-stakes decisions, and navigating areas of the business where they may lack expertise. They feel responsible not only for business performance but also for the livelihoods of those who have committed themselves to the business and even the broader network of dependents these individuals support. I often associate these moments with free-climbing — where halfway up, it may be as perilous to go down as it appears to continue climbing. Couple this sense of responsibility with the very real increase in the complexity of their roles, and it is hardly surprising that one may start to question their competence, feel unqualified, and even overwhelmed. Hypergrowth and the heightened pressure of raising capital and managing investor relationships only add to this burden. As the stakes increase, founders are thrust into new and unfamiliar territory. They may find themselves negotiating with high-profile investors, managing large sums of money, and being held accountable for growth targets that seem ever more difficult to reach. Founders are expected to take on new responsibilities and make decisions in areas they may not fully understand. This can lead to feelings of fraudulence, particularly when the stakes are high. The result can be a vicious cycle: the more successful the company becomes, the more the founder feels exposed. Despite external validation in the form of funding, top- and bottom-line success, raving (in a good way) clients, or media attention, internally, many founders feel they are simply not good enough to maintain the success they have achieved. Ironically, the more people rave, the more these feelings may grow. So what might you do? One of the most important steps is to ensure that founders are supported by a network of peers, advisors, or mentors who understand these dynamics. Spaces where they can openly explore these challenges — such as founder networks, coaching groups, or industry roundtables — allow them to process their experiences, make sense of the pressures they face, and gain valuable insights from others who have been through similar transitions. Recognising these feelings as a psychological defence mechanism rather than a reflection of reality is key. Founders should take an objective look at their strengths, development areas, and gaps where others may need to step in. Some skills may be worth developing, while others might be best delegated. Importantly, founders should ask themselves what role they are best placed to take on — because not every founder needs to become the CEO. In some cases, stepping into a different leadership role, such as Chief Product Officer or Executive Chair, might better align with their strengths and the company’s needs. A strong leadership team is critical to reducing the burden on founders and ensuring the company scales effectively. Many founders struggle with perfectionism, believing they must know everything and have all the answers. However, leadership is not about being the smartest person in the room — it’s about surrounding yourself with the right people and creating an environment where the team can work together to find solutions. Nurturing a group of individuals who can share the burden to the scaling business with you is both important and can be surprisingly rewarding. This may include bringing in a few new experienced heads, although I am increasingly drawn to the power of developing from within — either way this can allow the founder to focus on the areas where they add the most value. It also ensures that decisions are being made by those who are closest to the coalface. This shift from being the ‘doer’ to being the ‘enabler’ is a fundamental transition that many founders find challenging but ultimately liberating. It is also critical in ensuring that you don’t become trapped in the very thing you have built. It’s easy for founders to focus on what still needs to be done rather than acknowledging how far they’ve come. Taking the time to celebrate small wins along the way can help reinforce a sense of achievement and competence. Reframing success as a collective effort rather than a personal achievement can also alleviate the pressure to be perfect. Imposter syndrome may be a common experience for founders, especially as their businesses grow and their roles evolve, but it doesn’t have to hold them back. By acknowledging the reality of these feelings and implementing strategies to manage them, founders can find renewed confidence and perhaps see these feelings in part for what they are a sign the business is pushing into unchartered territory that often characterises growth.

4 min read

Founders and the burden of hope

I’m interested in words and non more so that the word ‘Founder”. I have mused previously about the dual meaning of this word but it is the symbolic weight that it now seems to carry which is the focus on these musings. I am a huge fan of Wilfred Bion’s profound insights about the functioning of groups and particularly the contrast he draws between functioning work groups and what he terms “basic assumption groups,” and the unconscious group dynamics that shape how people cope with uncertainty and chaos. Among these, the notion of pairing stands out, revealing not just a mechanism for managing anxiety but also a commentary on the nature of hope and the societal malaise we often find ourselves in. Bion’s framework of basic assumption groups illustrates how, in moments of collective disarray, individuals lean into irrational, almost primitive responses. Pairing, in particular, emerges when a group, gripped by a sense of malaise or fear, unconsciously selects a pair of individuals — investing them with messianic potential. This is never rational or conscious and rarely evidence of leadership capabilities but a desperate grasp for salvation, a deep yearning for someone, anyone, to lead them out of their current malaise. At the heart of this phenomenon is the paradox of hope. The group, while looking to this chosen pair for salvation, often finds itself comforted not by the actual prospect of success but by the very expectation of it. Hope, in this sense, thrives in anticipation, in the suspension between longing and resolution. It’s the possibility that the future will be brighter that keeps the group going, not necessarily the realisation of that brighter future. This same dynamic plays out across society. In a world where disillusionment feels more common than optimism, the need for a saviour has become pronounced. We see it in politics, in culture — and perhaps most strikingly — in the world of business and entrepreneurship. The modern founder or co-founders aren’t just entrepreneurs, they’ve become symbols, a messiah of sorts, carrying the collective hope of society on their shoulders. But what happens when we project our need for hope onto them? For founders and leaders, Bion’s theory suggests a seismic shift in their role. They aren’t simply architects of a business; they’re stewards of hope in a society adrift. In a world grappling with uncertainty, founders carry the burden of collective aspirations. Their success isn’t just measured in financial returns or disruptive innovations but measured in the intangible currency of hope. People look to them not only to create jobs or wealth but to embody the possibility of a better future. This realisation can be both daunting and liberating. On the one hand, it means founders are tasked with something far greater than profit margins they’re tasked with guiding us through turbulent times, providing not just solutions but the possibility that things can be better. On the other hand, it suggests that success is about more than just execution; it’s about vision, about keeping hope alive even in the face of adversity. However, the weight of carrying societal hope is not without its risks. In fact, this burden can often become overwhelming. When founders are cast in messianic roles, the pressure to meet these expectations can be crushing. The hope projected onto them becomes a force they must reckon with, one that can distort their own sense of identity. As they strive to live up to the myth society has created around them, they risk losing touch with reality, inflated by what we might call a “messiah complex.” This is where the danger lies, in trying to fulfill the exaggerated expectations thrust upon them, founders may begin to believe in their own myth. They become disconnected from their humanity, from the fallibility that comes with being human. Success, in this context, becomes more about maintaining an image than engaging with the messy realities of running a business. Yet, it’s important to remember that founders are not invincible. Like the rest of us, they are vulnerable to doubts, insecurities, and failures. Behind the facade of success lies a person grappling with immense pressure, trying to navigate the complexities of their role in an uncertain world. This is the core of the founder’s burden, not just to manage a company, but to manage the hopes of those around them. In projecting our hopes onto founders, we run the risk of not only setting them up for failure but also of losing the very creativity and edge that could lead to meaningful change. Hope, when inflated into a messianic expectation, becomes fragile, too easily shattered by the inevitable missteps and setbacks that come with entrepreneurship. What starts as a hopeful vision can quickly descend into disillusionment if the founder fails to meet the lofty aspirations placed on them. So, how do we avoid this cycle of projection, disappointment, and despair? By remembering that founders, like all of us, are human. They will falter, make mistakes, and, at times, fail spectacularly. The key is to hold onto hope not as a guarantee of success but as a space for possibility. Founders, after all, are not omnipotent saviours. They are individuals navigating a complex landscape, doing their best to create something meaningful in an unpredictable world.

4 min read

Founders and the burden of hope

I’m interested in words and non more so that the word ‘Founder”. I have mused previously about the dual meaning of this word but it is the symbolic weight that it now seems to carry which is the focus on these musings. I am a huge fan of Wilfred Bion’s profound insights about the functioning of groups and particularly the contrast he draws between functioning work groups and what he terms “basic assumption groups,” and the unconscious group dynamics that shape how people cope with uncertainty and chaos. Among these, the notion of pairing stands out, revealing not just a mechanism for managing anxiety but also a commentary on the nature of hope and the societal malaise we often find ourselves in. Bion’s framework of basic assumption groups illustrates how, in moments of collective disarray, individuals lean into irrational, almost primitive responses. Pairing, in particular, emerges when a group, gripped by a sense of malaise or fear, unconsciously selects a pair of individuals — investing them with messianic potential. This is never rational or conscious and rarely evidence of leadership capabilities but a desperate grasp for salvation, a deep yearning for someone, anyone, to lead them out of their current malaise. At the heart of this phenomenon is the paradox of hope. The group, while looking to this chosen pair for salvation, often finds itself comforted not by the actual prospect of success but by the very expectation of it. Hope, in this sense, thrives in anticipation, in the suspension between longing and resolution. It’s the possibility that the future will be brighter that keeps the group going, not necessarily the realisation of that brighter future. This same dynamic plays out across society. In a world where disillusionment feels more common than optimism, the need for a saviour has become pronounced. We see it in politics, in culture — and perhaps most strikingly — in the world of business and entrepreneurship. The modern founder or co-founders aren’t just entrepreneurs, they’ve become symbols, a messiah of sorts, carrying the collective hope of society on their shoulders. But what happens when we project our need for hope onto them? For founders and leaders, Bion’s theory suggests a seismic shift in their role. They aren’t simply architects of a business; they’re stewards of hope in a society adrift. In a world grappling with uncertainty, founders carry the burden of collective aspirations. Their success isn’t just measured in financial returns or disruptive innovations but measured in the intangible currency of hope. People look to them not only to create jobs or wealth but to embody the possibility of a better future. This realisation can be both daunting and liberating. On the one hand, it means founders are tasked with something far greater than profit margins they’re tasked with guiding us through turbulent times, providing not just solutions but the possibility that things can be better. On the other hand, it suggests that success is about more than just execution; it’s about vision, about keeping hope alive even in the face of adversity. However, the weight of carrying societal hope is not without its risks. In fact, this burden can often become overwhelming. When founders are cast in messianic roles, the pressure to meet these expectations can be crushing. The hope projected onto them becomes a force they must reckon with, one that can distort their own sense of identity. As they strive to live up to the myth society has created around them, they risk losing touch with reality, inflated by what we might call a “messiah complex.” This is where the danger lies, in trying to fulfill the exaggerated expectations thrust upon them, founders may begin to believe in their own myth. They become disconnected from their humanity, from the fallibility that comes with being human. Success, in this context, becomes more about maintaining an image than engaging with the messy realities of running a business. Yet, it’s important to remember that founders are not invincible. Like the rest of us, they are vulnerable to doubts, insecurities, and failures. Behind the facade of success lies a person grappling with immense pressure, trying to navigate the complexities of their role in an uncertain world. This is the core of the founder’s burden, not just to manage a company, but to manage the hopes of those around them. In projecting our hopes onto founders, we run the risk of not only setting them up for failure but also of losing the very creativity and edge that could lead to meaningful change. Hope, when inflated into a messianic expectation, becomes fragile, too easily shattered by the inevitable missteps and setbacks that come with entrepreneurship. What starts as a hopeful vision can quickly descend into disillusionment if the founder fails to meet the lofty aspirations placed on them. So, how do we avoid this cycle of projection, disappointment, and despair? By remembering that founders, like all of us, are human. They will falter, make mistakes, and, at times, fail spectacularly. The key is to hold onto hope not as a guarantee of success but as a space for possibility. Founders, after all, are not omnipotent saviours. They are individuals navigating a complex landscape, doing their best to create something meaningful in an unpredictable world.

2 min read

Finding a Goat to Scape…

Working with fast-growing businesses in constant flux, I often hear about so-called ‘problem’ individuals or teams. The usual story goes like this: the company is going through big changes, most people are on board, but a few difficult characters or specific group are holding back progress. If only they would stop resisting and just go along with it, things would be so much easier. Obholzer and Roberts (2019) discuss this in their paper, “The Troublesome Individual”, pointing out that “institutional difficulties are often attributed to the personalities of particular individuals, identified as ‘troublesome’” (p. 144). The assumption is that these people or the group are getting in way and that getting rid of them will fix the issue. But this way of thinking often misses the bigger picture. From what I’ve seen, these ‘troublesome’ people tend to appear when a company is going through major change. Rather than simply causing problems, they often give voice to concerns or uncertainties that others feel but don’t say out loud. This allows the wider group to ignore these uncomfortable feelings and instead pin the issue on one person — “it’s them, not us, who’s struggling with this”. A better approach is to step back and look at what’s really going on. Instead of saying, “Why is X being so difficult?”, it might be more useful to ask what their behaviour tells us about the company as a whole. Often, the people who get labelled as troublemakers are actually reflecting deeper tensions that the organisation hasn’t properly addressed. This matters because tackling the real underlying issues is far more effective than blaming individuals. Simply removing someone rarely solves the problem — before long, another person will take on the same role. Instead, recognising these patterns can help leaders make better decisions about how to support change. For anyone leading a fast-growing business, it’s worth asking: who in your organisation is being cast as the ‘troublemaker’? What might their actions reveal about the wider company dynamics? The answers whilst on occasion inconvenient can be helpful in shaping the actions you might choose to take.

2 min read

Finding a Goat to Scape…

Working with fast-growing businesses in constant flux, I often hear about so-called ‘problem’ individuals or teams. The usual story goes like this: the company is going through big changes, most people are on board, but a few difficult characters or specific group are holding back progress. If only they would stop resisting and just go along with it, things would be so much easier. Obholzer and Roberts (2019) discuss this in their paper, “The Troublesome Individual”, pointing out that “institutional difficulties are often attributed to the personalities of particular individuals, identified as ‘troublesome’” (p. 144). The assumption is that these people or the group are getting in way and that getting rid of them will fix the issue. But this way of thinking often misses the bigger picture. From what I’ve seen, these ‘troublesome’ people tend to appear when a company is going through major change. Rather than simply causing problems, they often give voice to concerns or uncertainties that others feel but don’t say out loud. This allows the wider group to ignore these uncomfortable feelings and instead pin the issue on one person — “it’s them, not us, who’s struggling with this”. A better approach is to step back and look at what’s really going on. Instead of saying, “Why is X being so difficult?”, it might be more useful to ask what their behaviour tells us about the company as a whole. Often, the people who get labelled as troublemakers are actually reflecting deeper tensions that the organisation hasn’t properly addressed. This matters because tackling the real underlying issues is far more effective than blaming individuals. Simply removing someone rarely solves the problem — before long, another person will take on the same role. Instead, recognising these patterns can help leaders make better decisions about how to support change. For anyone leading a fast-growing business, it’s worth asking: who in your organisation is being cast as the ‘troublemaker’? What might their actions reveal about the wider company dynamics? The answers whilst on occasion inconvenient can be helpful in shaping the actions you might choose to take.

Get in touch

Get in touch

Get in touch

Let’s start a conversation about navigating growth and strengthening your foundations.

Blog

Blog

Explore our blog for insights on navigating the human complexities of growth, leadership, and team dynamics. We share strategies to build resilience, strengthen relationships, and sustain thriving enterprises under pressure.

5 min read

Why Founders Feel Fraudulent as They Grow

As founders navigate the early stages of building a company, they often thrive on the energy, creativity, and sheer determination required to get a business off the ground. However, as the company begins to grow, many founders find themselves facing an unexpected and unsettling experience: a creeping sense of inadequacy and self-doubt, commonly known as imposter syndrome. This feeling of being out of one’s depth often strikes during periods of significant growth when the explicit and implicit responsibilities and expectations placed on a founder increase dramatically. Despite founding the business, beating the odds to scale, and achieving notable successes, many founders feel as though they are frauds, unworthy of the position they hold and fearful of being “found out” at any moment. This experience is characterised by persistent self-doubt and a belief that one’s success is down to blag, luck, timing, or external factors rather than personal ability or competence. In my experience, you feel that sooner or later someone wiser and more experienced than you will see straight through your facade. These moments always remind me of the time my wife and I left the post-natal ward with our daughter for the first time, convinced that at any moment, someone would tap us on the shoulder and ask what we thought we were doing. For many founders, these feelings only intensify as the company grows, marking the moment — or more specifically, a series of moments — when the skills required to lead a small, scrappy startup need to be superseded by those needed to manage a rapidly scaling business. In the early days of a startup, founders are deeply involved in every aspect of the business. They have a hands-on role in operations, product development, marketing, and even customer service. They know the business inside out and rely heavily on their instincts and passion to drive it forward. Everyone knows everyone else; getting things done is often a matter of a Zoom call or leaning across the desk. But as the company scales and the dynamics of the organisation begin to shift, so too does the role of the founder. They must now navigate the need to maintain momentum in day-to-day operations while stepping back to focus on strategy, leadership, and building longer-term foundations. This transition can be uncomfortable and disorienting. Suddenly, founders are leading larger teams, making high-stakes decisions, and navigating areas of the business where they may lack expertise. They feel responsible not only for business performance but also for the livelihoods of those who have committed themselves to the business and even the broader network of dependents these individuals support. I often associate these moments with free-climbing — where halfway up, it may be as perilous to go down as it appears to continue climbing. Couple this sense of responsibility with the very real increase in the complexity of their roles, and it is hardly surprising that one may start to question their competence, feel unqualified, and even overwhelmed. Hypergrowth and the heightened pressure of raising capital and managing investor relationships only add to this burden. As the stakes increase, founders are thrust into new and unfamiliar territory. They may find themselves negotiating with high-profile investors, managing large sums of money, and being held accountable for growth targets that seem ever more difficult to reach. Founders are expected to take on new responsibilities and make decisions in areas they may not fully understand. This can lead to feelings of fraudulence, particularly when the stakes are high. The result can be a vicious cycle: the more successful the company becomes, the more the founder feels exposed. Despite external validation in the form of funding, top- and bottom-line success, raving (in a good way) clients, or media attention, internally, many founders feel they are simply not good enough to maintain the success they have achieved. Ironically, the more people rave, the more these feelings may grow. So what might you do? One of the most important steps is to ensure that founders are supported by a network of peers, advisors, or mentors who understand these dynamics. Spaces where they can openly explore these challenges — such as founder networks, coaching groups, or industry roundtables — allow them to process their experiences, make sense of the pressures they face, and gain valuable insights from others who have been through similar transitions. Recognising these feelings as a psychological defence mechanism rather than a reflection of reality is key. Founders should take an objective look at their strengths, development areas, and gaps where others may need to step in. Some skills may be worth developing, while others might be best delegated. Importantly, founders should ask themselves what role they are best placed to take on — because not every founder needs to become the CEO. In some cases, stepping into a different leadership role, such as Chief Product Officer or Executive Chair, might better align with their strengths and the company’s needs. A strong leadership team is critical to reducing the burden on founders and ensuring the company scales effectively. Many founders struggle with perfectionism, believing they must know everything and have all the answers. However, leadership is not about being the smartest person in the room — it’s about surrounding yourself with the right people and creating an environment where the team can work together to find solutions. Nurturing a group of individuals who can share the burden to the scaling business with you is both important and can be surprisingly rewarding. This may include bringing in a few new experienced heads, although I am increasingly drawn to the power of developing from within — either way this can allow the founder to focus on the areas where they add the most value. It also ensures that decisions are being made by those who are closest to the coalface. This shift from being the ‘doer’ to being the ‘enabler’ is a fundamental transition that many founders find challenging but ultimately liberating. It is also critical in ensuring that you don’t become trapped in the very thing you have built. It’s easy for founders to focus on what still needs to be done rather than acknowledging how far they’ve come. Taking the time to celebrate small wins along the way can help reinforce a sense of achievement and competence. Reframing success as a collective effort rather than a personal achievement can also alleviate the pressure to be perfect. Imposter syndrome may be a common experience for founders, especially as their businesses grow and their roles evolve, but it doesn’t have to hold them back. By acknowledging the reality of these feelings and implementing strategies to manage them, founders can find renewed confidence and perhaps see these feelings in part for what they are a sign the business is pushing into unchartered territory that often characterises growth.

5 min read

Why Founders Feel Fraudulent as They Grow

As founders navigate the early stages of building a company, they often thrive on the energy, creativity, and sheer determination required to get a business off the ground. However, as the company begins to grow, many founders find themselves facing an unexpected and unsettling experience: a creeping sense of inadequacy and self-doubt, commonly known as imposter syndrome. This feeling of being out of one’s depth often strikes during periods of significant growth when the explicit and implicit responsibilities and expectations placed on a founder increase dramatically. Despite founding the business, beating the odds to scale, and achieving notable successes, many founders feel as though they are frauds, unworthy of the position they hold and fearful of being “found out” at any moment. This experience is characterised by persistent self-doubt and a belief that one’s success is down to blag, luck, timing, or external factors rather than personal ability or competence. In my experience, you feel that sooner or later someone wiser and more experienced than you will see straight through your facade. These moments always remind me of the time my wife and I left the post-natal ward with our daughter for the first time, convinced that at any moment, someone would tap us on the shoulder and ask what we thought we were doing. For many founders, these feelings only intensify as the company grows, marking the moment — or more specifically, a series of moments — when the skills required to lead a small, scrappy startup need to be superseded by those needed to manage a rapidly scaling business. In the early days of a startup, founders are deeply involved in every aspect of the business. They have a hands-on role in operations, product development, marketing, and even customer service. They know the business inside out and rely heavily on their instincts and passion to drive it forward. Everyone knows everyone else; getting things done is often a matter of a Zoom call or leaning across the desk. But as the company scales and the dynamics of the organisation begin to shift, so too does the role of the founder. They must now navigate the need to maintain momentum in day-to-day operations while stepping back to focus on strategy, leadership, and building longer-term foundations. This transition can be uncomfortable and disorienting. Suddenly, founders are leading larger teams, making high-stakes decisions, and navigating areas of the business where they may lack expertise. They feel responsible not only for business performance but also for the livelihoods of those who have committed themselves to the business and even the broader network of dependents these individuals support. I often associate these moments with free-climbing — where halfway up, it may be as perilous to go down as it appears to continue climbing. Couple this sense of responsibility with the very real increase in the complexity of their roles, and it is hardly surprising that one may start to question their competence, feel unqualified, and even overwhelmed. Hypergrowth and the heightened pressure of raising capital and managing investor relationships only add to this burden. As the stakes increase, founders are thrust into new and unfamiliar territory. They may find themselves negotiating with high-profile investors, managing large sums of money, and being held accountable for growth targets that seem ever more difficult to reach. Founders are expected to take on new responsibilities and make decisions in areas they may not fully understand. This can lead to feelings of fraudulence, particularly when the stakes are high. The result can be a vicious cycle: the more successful the company becomes, the more the founder feels exposed. Despite external validation in the form of funding, top- and bottom-line success, raving (in a good way) clients, or media attention, internally, many founders feel they are simply not good enough to maintain the success they have achieved. Ironically, the more people rave, the more these feelings may grow. So what might you do? One of the most important steps is to ensure that founders are supported by a network of peers, advisors, or mentors who understand these dynamics. Spaces where they can openly explore these challenges — such as founder networks, coaching groups, or industry roundtables — allow them to process their experiences, make sense of the pressures they face, and gain valuable insights from others who have been through similar transitions. Recognising these feelings as a psychological defence mechanism rather than a reflection of reality is key. Founders should take an objective look at their strengths, development areas, and gaps where others may need to step in. Some skills may be worth developing, while others might be best delegated. Importantly, founders should ask themselves what role they are best placed to take on — because not every founder needs to become the CEO. In some cases, stepping into a different leadership role, such as Chief Product Officer or Executive Chair, might better align with their strengths and the company’s needs. A strong leadership team is critical to reducing the burden on founders and ensuring the company scales effectively. Many founders struggle with perfectionism, believing they must know everything and have all the answers. However, leadership is not about being the smartest person in the room — it’s about surrounding yourself with the right people and creating an environment where the team can work together to find solutions. Nurturing a group of individuals who can share the burden to the scaling business with you is both important and can be surprisingly rewarding. This may include bringing in a few new experienced heads, although I am increasingly drawn to the power of developing from within — either way this can allow the founder to focus on the areas where they add the most value. It also ensures that decisions are being made by those who are closest to the coalface. This shift from being the ‘doer’ to being the ‘enabler’ is a fundamental transition that many founders find challenging but ultimately liberating. It is also critical in ensuring that you don’t become trapped in the very thing you have built. It’s easy for founders to focus on what still needs to be done rather than acknowledging how far they’ve come. Taking the time to celebrate small wins along the way can help reinforce a sense of achievement and competence. Reframing success as a collective effort rather than a personal achievement can also alleviate the pressure to be perfect. Imposter syndrome may be a common experience for founders, especially as their businesses grow and their roles evolve, but it doesn’t have to hold them back. By acknowledging the reality of these feelings and implementing strategies to manage them, founders can find renewed confidence and perhaps see these feelings in part for what they are a sign the business is pushing into unchartered territory that often characterises growth.

4 min read

Founders and the burden of hope

I’m interested in words and non more so that the word ‘Founder”. I have mused previously about the dual meaning of this word but it is the symbolic weight that it now seems to carry which is the focus on these musings. I am a huge fan of Wilfred Bion’s profound insights about the functioning of groups and particularly the contrast he draws between functioning work groups and what he terms “basic assumption groups,” and the unconscious group dynamics that shape how people cope with uncertainty and chaos. Among these, the notion of pairing stands out, revealing not just a mechanism for managing anxiety but also a commentary on the nature of hope and the societal malaise we often find ourselves in. Bion’s framework of basic assumption groups illustrates how, in moments of collective disarray, individuals lean into irrational, almost primitive responses. Pairing, in particular, emerges when a group, gripped by a sense of malaise or fear, unconsciously selects a pair of individuals — investing them with messianic potential. This is never rational or conscious and rarely evidence of leadership capabilities but a desperate grasp for salvation, a deep yearning for someone, anyone, to lead them out of their current malaise. At the heart of this phenomenon is the paradox of hope. The group, while looking to this chosen pair for salvation, often finds itself comforted not by the actual prospect of success but by the very expectation of it. Hope, in this sense, thrives in anticipation, in the suspension between longing and resolution. It’s the possibility that the future will be brighter that keeps the group going, not necessarily the realisation of that brighter future. This same dynamic plays out across society. In a world where disillusionment feels more common than optimism, the need for a saviour has become pronounced. We see it in politics, in culture — and perhaps most strikingly — in the world of business and entrepreneurship. The modern founder or co-founders aren’t just entrepreneurs, they’ve become symbols, a messiah of sorts, carrying the collective hope of society on their shoulders. But what happens when we project our need for hope onto them? For founders and leaders, Bion’s theory suggests a seismic shift in their role. They aren’t simply architects of a business; they’re stewards of hope in a society adrift. In a world grappling with uncertainty, founders carry the burden of collective aspirations. Their success isn’t just measured in financial returns or disruptive innovations but measured in the intangible currency of hope. People look to them not only to create jobs or wealth but to embody the possibility of a better future. This realisation can be both daunting and liberating. On the one hand, it means founders are tasked with something far greater than profit margins they’re tasked with guiding us through turbulent times, providing not just solutions but the possibility that things can be better. On the other hand, it suggests that success is about more than just execution; it’s about vision, about keeping hope alive even in the face of adversity. However, the weight of carrying societal hope is not without its risks. In fact, this burden can often become overwhelming. When founders are cast in messianic roles, the pressure to meet these expectations can be crushing. The hope projected onto them becomes a force they must reckon with, one that can distort their own sense of identity. As they strive to live up to the myth society has created around them, they risk losing touch with reality, inflated by what we might call a “messiah complex.” This is where the danger lies, in trying to fulfill the exaggerated expectations thrust upon them, founders may begin to believe in their own myth. They become disconnected from their humanity, from the fallibility that comes with being human. Success, in this context, becomes more about maintaining an image than engaging with the messy realities of running a business. Yet, it’s important to remember that founders are not invincible. Like the rest of us, they are vulnerable to doubts, insecurities, and failures. Behind the facade of success lies a person grappling with immense pressure, trying to navigate the complexities of their role in an uncertain world. This is the core of the founder’s burden, not just to manage a company, but to manage the hopes of those around them. In projecting our hopes onto founders, we run the risk of not only setting them up for failure but also of losing the very creativity and edge that could lead to meaningful change. Hope, when inflated into a messianic expectation, becomes fragile, too easily shattered by the inevitable missteps and setbacks that come with entrepreneurship. What starts as a hopeful vision can quickly descend into disillusionment if the founder fails to meet the lofty aspirations placed on them. So, how do we avoid this cycle of projection, disappointment, and despair? By remembering that founders, like all of us, are human. They will falter, make mistakes, and, at times, fail spectacularly. The key is to hold onto hope not as a guarantee of success but as a space for possibility. Founders, after all, are not omnipotent saviours. They are individuals navigating a complex landscape, doing their best to create something meaningful in an unpredictable world.

4 min read

Founders and the burden of hope

I’m interested in words and non more so that the word ‘Founder”. I have mused previously about the dual meaning of this word but it is the symbolic weight that it now seems to carry which is the focus on these musings. I am a huge fan of Wilfred Bion’s profound insights about the functioning of groups and particularly the contrast he draws between functioning work groups and what he terms “basic assumption groups,” and the unconscious group dynamics that shape how people cope with uncertainty and chaos. Among these, the notion of pairing stands out, revealing not just a mechanism for managing anxiety but also a commentary on the nature of hope and the societal malaise we often find ourselves in. Bion’s framework of basic assumption groups illustrates how, in moments of collective disarray, individuals lean into irrational, almost primitive responses. Pairing, in particular, emerges when a group, gripped by a sense of malaise or fear, unconsciously selects a pair of individuals — investing them with messianic potential. This is never rational or conscious and rarely evidence of leadership capabilities but a desperate grasp for salvation, a deep yearning for someone, anyone, to lead them out of their current malaise. At the heart of this phenomenon is the paradox of hope. The group, while looking to this chosen pair for salvation, often finds itself comforted not by the actual prospect of success but by the very expectation of it. Hope, in this sense, thrives in anticipation, in the suspension between longing and resolution. It’s the possibility that the future will be brighter that keeps the group going, not necessarily the realisation of that brighter future. This same dynamic plays out across society. In a world where disillusionment feels more common than optimism, the need for a saviour has become pronounced. We see it in politics, in culture — and perhaps most strikingly — in the world of business and entrepreneurship. The modern founder or co-founders aren’t just entrepreneurs, they’ve become symbols, a messiah of sorts, carrying the collective hope of society on their shoulders. But what happens when we project our need for hope onto them? For founders and leaders, Bion’s theory suggests a seismic shift in their role. They aren’t simply architects of a business; they’re stewards of hope in a society adrift. In a world grappling with uncertainty, founders carry the burden of collective aspirations. Their success isn’t just measured in financial returns or disruptive innovations but measured in the intangible currency of hope. People look to them not only to create jobs or wealth but to embody the possibility of a better future. This realisation can be both daunting and liberating. On the one hand, it means founders are tasked with something far greater than profit margins they’re tasked with guiding us through turbulent times, providing not just solutions but the possibility that things can be better. On the other hand, it suggests that success is about more than just execution; it’s about vision, about keeping hope alive even in the face of adversity. However, the weight of carrying societal hope is not without its risks. In fact, this burden can often become overwhelming. When founders are cast in messianic roles, the pressure to meet these expectations can be crushing. The hope projected onto them becomes a force they must reckon with, one that can distort their own sense of identity. As they strive to live up to the myth society has created around them, they risk losing touch with reality, inflated by what we might call a “messiah complex.” This is where the danger lies, in trying to fulfill the exaggerated expectations thrust upon them, founders may begin to believe in their own myth. They become disconnected from their humanity, from the fallibility that comes with being human. Success, in this context, becomes more about maintaining an image than engaging with the messy realities of running a business. Yet, it’s important to remember that founders are not invincible. Like the rest of us, they are vulnerable to doubts, insecurities, and failures. Behind the facade of success lies a person grappling with immense pressure, trying to navigate the complexities of their role in an uncertain world. This is the core of the founder’s burden, not just to manage a company, but to manage the hopes of those around them. In projecting our hopes onto founders, we run the risk of not only setting them up for failure but also of losing the very creativity and edge that could lead to meaningful change. Hope, when inflated into a messianic expectation, becomes fragile, too easily shattered by the inevitable missteps and setbacks that come with entrepreneurship. What starts as a hopeful vision can quickly descend into disillusionment if the founder fails to meet the lofty aspirations placed on them. So, how do we avoid this cycle of projection, disappointment, and despair? By remembering that founders, like all of us, are human. They will falter, make mistakes, and, at times, fail spectacularly. The key is to hold onto hope not as a guarantee of success but as a space for possibility. Founders, after all, are not omnipotent saviours. They are individuals navigating a complex landscape, doing their best to create something meaningful in an unpredictable world.

2 min read

Finding a Goat to Scape…

Working with fast-growing businesses in constant flux, I often hear about so-called ‘problem’ individuals or teams. The usual story goes like this: the company is going through big changes, most people are on board, but a few difficult characters or specific group are holding back progress. If only they would stop resisting and just go along with it, things would be so much easier. Obholzer and Roberts (2019) discuss this in their paper, “The Troublesome Individual”, pointing out that “institutional difficulties are often attributed to the personalities of particular individuals, identified as ‘troublesome’” (p. 144). The assumption is that these people or the group are getting in way and that getting rid of them will fix the issue. But this way of thinking often misses the bigger picture. From what I’ve seen, these ‘troublesome’ people tend to appear when a company is going through major change. Rather than simply causing problems, they often give voice to concerns or uncertainties that others feel but don’t say out loud. This allows the wider group to ignore these uncomfortable feelings and instead pin the issue on one person — “it’s them, not us, who’s struggling with this”. A better approach is to step back and look at what’s really going on. Instead of saying, “Why is X being so difficult?”, it might be more useful to ask what their behaviour tells us about the company as a whole. Often, the people who get labelled as troublemakers are actually reflecting deeper tensions that the organisation hasn’t properly addressed. This matters because tackling the real underlying issues is far more effective than blaming individuals. Simply removing someone rarely solves the problem — before long, another person will take on the same role. Instead, recognising these patterns can help leaders make better decisions about how to support change. For anyone leading a fast-growing business, it’s worth asking: who in your organisation is being cast as the ‘troublemaker’? What might their actions reveal about the wider company dynamics? The answers whilst on occasion inconvenient can be helpful in shaping the actions you might choose to take.

2 min read

Finding a Goat to Scape…

Working with fast-growing businesses in constant flux, I often hear about so-called ‘problem’ individuals or teams. The usual story goes like this: the company is going through big changes, most people are on board, but a few difficult characters or specific group are holding back progress. If only they would stop resisting and just go along with it, things would be so much easier. Obholzer and Roberts (2019) discuss this in their paper, “The Troublesome Individual”, pointing out that “institutional difficulties are often attributed to the personalities of particular individuals, identified as ‘troublesome’” (p. 144). The assumption is that these people or the group are getting in way and that getting rid of them will fix the issue. But this way of thinking often misses the bigger picture. From what I’ve seen, these ‘troublesome’ people tend to appear when a company is going through major change. Rather than simply causing problems, they often give voice to concerns or uncertainties that others feel but don’t say out loud. This allows the wider group to ignore these uncomfortable feelings and instead pin the issue on one person — “it’s them, not us, who’s struggling with this”. A better approach is to step back and look at what’s really going on. Instead of saying, “Why is X being so difficult?”, it might be more useful to ask what their behaviour tells us about the company as a whole. Often, the people who get labelled as troublemakers are actually reflecting deeper tensions that the organisation hasn’t properly addressed. This matters because tackling the real underlying issues is far more effective than blaming individuals. Simply removing someone rarely solves the problem — before long, another person will take on the same role. Instead, recognising these patterns can help leaders make better decisions about how to support change. For anyone leading a fast-growing business, it’s worth asking: who in your organisation is being cast as the ‘troublemaker’? What might their actions reveal about the wider company dynamics? The answers whilst on occasion inconvenient can be helpful in shaping the actions you might choose to take.