Stop Hiring from Big Tech (Until You Read This)


As a founder, hiring someone with an impressive brand on their CV is tempting. 

However, hiring an exec from Big Tech is a known anti-pattern in startup hiring.

Despite their impeccable interview style and flawless references, Big Tech execs often fail when thrown into the chaos of an early-stage role.

Here are three non-obvious reasons why this happens so often.

1. Price’s Law

Derek J. de Solla Price was a science historian obsessed with measuring productivity.

In his 1963 book, Little Science, Big Science, he observed that over half of the published research in a scientific field came from a tiny proportion of the scientists.

This became known as Price’s Law, and the pattern generalises beyond science:

Half the output comes from the square root of the participants. 

You see this in sports. The top 10 tennis players take over half of the titles. And even among the top 10, three of them win most often—Alcaraz, Sinner, Zverev.

You see this in music. Most of the listens on Spotify come from a small number of musicians—Taylor Swift, Bad Bunny, and Drake.

And you see this within businesses too:

  • In a 10-person company, 3 people generate over half the results.
  • In a 100-person company, it’s around 10 people.
  • In a 10,000-person company, just 100 people drive over 50% of the output.

I shared this formula at one of my recent CEO intensives, and watched my founders get out their calculators to work out the square root of their headcount. One by one, they all nodded in agreement.

So when you hire talent from a big company with over 10,000 people, the chance you’re hiring one of their top performers is dishearteningly low. The distribution of performance is wildly uneven.

How to mitigate: Reference the candidate with someone you already know is a top performer. Without a strong network of your own, you’ll have to rely on their references which is less reliable.

2. Unearned Scale Advantages

 If a big company isn’t full of competent people, how did they scale?

Often, the difficulty of scaling talent is offset by the advantages of scale.

Not every business gets better with scale. Indeed, companies that rely heavily on human competence to deliver value (agencies, consulting, services) often get worse with scale (at least before AI came along).

But Big Tech is different. Successful tech products get better with scale, and there are a few drivers of this:

  • Network Effects: New users of the product make it more valuable for existing users (e.g. social networks, marketplaces, and communication tools).
  • Economies of Scale: Scale leads to lower costs that can be passed to the customer (e.g. Netflix can spread the cost of exclusive TV shows across millions of viewers).
  • Brand Power: Buyers place a premium on safety, trust, and status when making a purchase (e.g. “No one ever got fired for buying IBM”).

This makes it extremely hard to separate the contributions of the individual from the advantages of working for an at-scale company.

How to mitigate: Check when they joined and at what scale. If they joined after the size you’re at now, discount their contributions accordingly.

 3. Already Established Systems

Even when you find a high performer, you can’t assume they’ll perform as well at your company.

We tend to think of performance as an individual quality. But it’s also a function of the systems someone operates within. A top-performing Sales Development Rep (SDR) at one company can fail at another with weaker systems.

It’s helpful to group execs into two buckets: builders and operators

Builders thrive when they get to build systems from scratch. Operators thrive when they get to run systems that already exist.

Big Tech companies have well-developed systems across the board:

  • Org Systems: clear roles and responsibilities.
  • IP Systems: playbooks, checklists, and training.
  • IT Systems: automations and workflows.
  • Cultural Systems: rituals and shared language.

This means most Big Tech execs are operators who got results by running systems someone else built. 

But in an early-stage company, the systems don’t exist yet and you need someone to build them. And that’s a different kind of person. 

How to mitigate: First figure out whether you need a builder-type to create a system, or an operator-type who can operate the system you already have. Then assess their profile using this guide.

Brand Names Can Hide Weak Performers

There are real advantages to hiring from Big Tech. They’ve seen what good looks like at scale, they bring pattern recognition from inside mature systems, and they come with networks and credibility you can borrow.

But there are also drawbacks worth knowing, so you can ask better questions at interview and debunk some of your false assumptions.

Ultimately, working at a brand doesn’t make you a top performer.

And there’s a bigger lesson in this for you.

As you scale, you can’t rely on competence alone. Make sure you’re building products that get better with scale and systems that turn average performers into great ones.

Because the only way to build a company of A-players is to find ways to make everyone’s job easier.

Related Reading: 


Originally published on May 13th, 2026

How do top founders actually scale?

I’ve coached CEOs for 10,000+ hours—here’s what works.
Join 17,000+ founders learning how to scale with clarity.

Unsubscribe any time.





Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


I was watching a Ford truck commercial—you know, the kind that airs during Monday Night Football—and the theme was how good solid blue-collar Americans who own small welding businesses and wear plaid flannel shirts always give 100%. Cue Bob Seger, “Like a Rock.”

Oh wait, that was Chevy. But you get the idea.

Anyway, Ford has obviously gone soft. Anyone who follows sports or business figures on social media knows that giving 100% is for losers. Winners give 110% every day. I know this from watching Shark Tank and that Michael Jordan documentary.

This idea is not limited to athletes and self-made billionaires. There’s another group that really likes to say that you need to exert the maximum possible effort, stretching yourself to the limit, every time, all the time.

The 110% mentality in law practice

Lawyers, of course. Especially in the BigLaw world. It’s a standard part of the culture.

Just ask that prominent “law-bro” recruiter who’s always giving cringey advice. Or that firm that billed a bazillion hours on the Twitter lawsuit.

I chalk up this 110% rhetoric mainly to marketing. It’s the image law firms want to sell to their clients, and also to their associates. They want clients to think they go all out, all the time, and they want associates to feel guilty when they don’t bill as many hours as humanly possible.

I’ve always been kind of skeptical about this idea. For starters, I just don’t think it’s realistic to demand maximum effort, 25 billable hours a day, for days on end. Anybody who has worked in a law firm knows this just doesn’t really happen.

I mean, we’re talking about practice. Not a game . . .

But lately I’ve been thinking about a different objection to the “always be grinding” mentality in law firm culture: does it actually result in better performance?

I hypothesize that lawyers and other professionals might actually perform at a higher level if they ditch the 110% approach.

To test this hypothesis, I did an experiment.

My scientific experiment

I went to the park to test how far I could kick a soccer ball. But here’s the key: I did it two ways.

First, I thought about kicking the ball as hard as I possibly could.

Second, I relaxed and thought about kicking the ball hard, but not as hard as I could.

To keep it scientific, I repeated the experiment multiple times. I mean, like at least three times.

I don’t even need to tell you what happened.

Yes, of course, I got more distance with the second approach. Maybe not every single time, but definitely most of the time.

The same experiment works with driving a golf ball off the tee. If you play golf at all, you already know this. When you walk up to the tee box thinking “I’m going to smack the crap out of this ball,” the result is almost always bad. Unless you are John Daly. But I digress.

The point is that the experiment illustrates a principle well known to sports psychologists, the “85 Percent Rule.”

The 85 Percent Rule

Here’s what people who coach elite athletes already know. Let’s say you tell a world-class sprinter to run the 100-meter dash at 85% effort. Often that results in a faster time than trying to run at 100% effort.

Now, of course, this isn’t a highly scientific theory, and you can quibble with the details. But that’s not the point.

The point is that athletes often get better results when they don’t try as hard as they possibly can.

What gives? Why is that?

The theory is that when elite athletes concentrate on exerting the maximum possible effort, they tense up, and their performance suffers. When they think about giving 85%, they relax and perform better.

Could the same principle hold true for lawyers, and other professionals?

Anecdotal evidence and my own personal experience suggest the answer may be yes.

Do the most effective lawyers give 110 percent?

Have you ever watched a lawyer in the courtroom who just seems to be trying too hard? It can be hard to watch. They’re going all out to try to persuade the judge or jury to go their way, but instead they just sound desperate, or overly aggressive.

And don’t get me started on law firms over-working a file.

On the other hand, think about the most persuasive lawyers you have seen in action. Did they seem like they were straining to exert themselves as much as humanly possible? Or did they seem relaxed and confident?

You don’t even have to say anything, I already know what the best lawyers are like.

Like a rock.

______________________

Zach Wolfe (zach@zachwolfelaw.com) is a Texas trial lawyer who handles non-compete and trade secret litigation at Zach Wolfe Law Firm (zachwolfelaw.com). Thomson Reuters has named him a Texas Super Lawyer® for Business Litigation every year since 2020.

These are his opinions, not the opinions of his firm or clients, so don’t cite part of this post against him in an actual case. Every case is different, so don’t rely on this post as legal advice for your case.



Source link