To cultivate a culture of high agency, frame ultimate responsibility as a privilege, not a burden. By telling new hires 'everything's your fault now,' you immediately set the expectation that they have control and are empowered to solve problems. This approach attracts and retains individuals who see ownership as an opportunity to make an impact.

The "Decision Ladder" is a framework for radical empowerment. By giving every employee permission to spend a small amount (e.g., $50) to solve any problem—with increasing authority for managers and directors—you eliminate approval delays and foster a culture of ownership.

In a highly collaborative and fast-paced environment, assign explicit ownership for every feature, no matter how small. The goal isn't to assign blame for failures but to empower individuals with the agency to make decisions, build consensus, and see their work through to completion.

Counterintuitively, implementing formal processes like documented decision-making (e.g., a RAPID framework) early on increases a startup's velocity. It creates a clear, universally understood system for making decisions, preventing delays caused by ambiguity or passive-aggressive managers.

To maintain an exceptionally high talent bar while scaling, Coinbase's top two executives personally review a detailed packet for every prospective employee. They retain the right to veto any hire, demonstrating an extreme commitment to talent quality over speed.

To prevent a culture of complaining, Coinbase requires employees to document issues using a "Problem, Proposed Solution" framework. This forces individuals to move beyond simple criticism and contribute constructively, ensuring that dissent is paired with a thoughtful potential solution.

When a project stagnates, it's often because "everyone's accountable, which means no one's accountable." To combat this diffusion of responsibility, assign one "single-threaded owner" who is publicly responsible for reporting progress and triaging issues. This clarity, combined with assigning individual names to action items, fosters true ownership.

Unlike committees, where partners might "sell" each other on a deal, a single decision-maker model tests true conviction. If a General Partner proceeds with an investment despite negative feedback from the partnership, it demonstrates their unwavering belief, leading to more intellectually honest decisions.

Using the classic "ham and eggs" fable, projects fail when filled with "chickens" who are merely involved versus "pigs" who are fully committed. To ensure accountability, organizations must assign single-threaded leaders ("pigs") who own an outcome end-to-end, rather than committees of contributors.