Intentionally assigning fewer people to a project than seems necessary forces extreme focus on the highest priorities. Overstaffing is "poison" because it breeds politics, encourages work on non-essential tasks, and creates cruft that slows the entire company down.

Related Insights

When Trello's PMM team shrank from ten members to two, the crisis forced them to build robust systems for tracking projects, assessing bandwidth, and prioritizing tasks. This extreme constraint became the necessary catalyst for developing a more strategic and organized workflow out of sheer survival.

To avoid stifling teams with bureaucracy, leaders should provide slightly less structure than seems necessary. This approach, described as "give ground grudgingly," forces teams to think actively and prevents the feeling of "walking in the muck" that comes from excessive process. It's a sign of a healthy system when people feel they need a bit more structure, not less.

By strictly limiting team size, a company is forced to hire only the “best in the world” for each role. This avoids the dilution of talent and communication overhead that plagues growing organizations, aiming to perpetually maintain the high-productivity “mind meld” of a founding team.

If hiring more people isn't increasing output, it's likely because you're adding 'ammunition' (individual contributors) without adding 'barrels' (the key people or projects that enable work). To scale effectively, you must increase the number of independent workstreams, not just the headcount within them.

According to the 'dark side' of Metcalfe's Law, each new team member exponentially increases the number of communication channels. This hidden cost of complexity often outweighs the added capacity, leading to more miscommunication and lost information. Improving operational efficiency is often a better first step than hiring.

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.

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.

Drawing from experience at big tech, Surge AI's founder believes large organizations slow down top performers with distractions. By building a super-small, elite team, companies can achieve more with less overhead, a principle proven by Surge's own success.

The company culture is driven by a weekly mantra: "What is the one thing that you will put unreasonable effort to this week to contribute towards our most important goal?" This framing forces extreme focus and intensity, elevating execution beyond simply working hard on high-priority objectives.

To avoid bureaucratic bloat, organize the company into small, self-sufficient "pods" of no more than 10 people. Each pod owns a specific problem and includes all necessary roles. Performance is judged solely on the pod's impact, mimicking an early-stage startup's focus.