David sat in his office early one sunny Thursday morning, reflecting on how far his company had come. Growth was strong, the team was bigger than ever, and opportunities seemed to multiply by the month. From the outside, things looked enviable: new clients, industry recognition, and steady financial results. Yet what occupied his mind wasn’t the wins already achieved, but the question of how to take the business further without relying on sheer willpower. He sensed that what had worked so far might not be enough for the next stage, and he knew instinct alone would not carry him forever. What he needed now was a way to turn ambition into structure, and energy into systems that would help his people thrive.
I share David’s story because it captures a pattern I’ve witnessed time and again: growth brought opportunity, and with it, new questions about how far instinct could take him. His journey mirrors the questions many leaders face when moving from momentum to maturity. The lessons he uncovered aren’t theory, they’re lived experience, and they’re worth reflecting on for any leader who wants to build something that lasts.
David’s growth as a leader didn’t come from crisis but from curiosity. Each stage of expansion nudged him toward new questions. He found himself exploring not what was broken, but what could be built stronger. Three lessons in particular reshaped his thinking, each turning ambition into a more resilient, scalable business. And while this is David’s story, many leaders will recognise elements of their own journey within it.
Hiring for Responsibility, Not Just a Role
In the early days, David recruited in the most straightforward way possible. A vacancy appeared, he wrote a job description, and he interviewed quickly to fill it. That approach had worked, but as the company grew, he began to wonder if filling roles quickly was enough to build the kind of team he now needed.
This curiosity led him to shift from job descriptions to responsibility descriptions. Rather than listing tasks, he started writing down what someone would be responsible for delivering and shaping. He asked candidates not only what they had done, but what they had owned. As he made this change, he began to see candidates differently, no longer as people to complete tasks, but as potential stewards of responsibility.
He tested this new approach on a pivotal hire, a new marketing manager. Instead of writing “manage campaigns and social media,” he framed the role as “responsible for shaping how the business tells its story to customers.” The candidate he chose didn’t just run campaigns, she redesigned the whole messaging approach, built a small content team, and freed David from being the accidental chief marketer. It was the first time he saw clearly how responsibilities created ownership that rippled far beyond a job description.
This change echoed ideas he later found reinforced in my own writings on building teams that scale. David realised that if he was only recruiting for the present, he was already behind. Future roles mattered more. He needed people who could grow into tomorrow’s responsibilities, not just survive today’s. It required slowing down the process, resisting the urge to plug gaps with warm bodies, and building a rhythm of multiple interviews, assessments, and even social settings to see the real person emerge.
The hardest part was slowing down when urgency screamed otherwise. But over time, he noticed something remarkable: hires stayed longer, delivered more, and integrated faster. The system was doing the heavy lifting, filtering out “interview experts” and surfacing those with genuine resilience and alignment. As ownership became normal across the team, David found his own role shifting, he was less often pulled back into firefighting, and more often free to focus on where the business was heading next.
Many leaders find themselves at this same crossroads: the temptation to hire fast, versus the discipline to hire right. David’s story shows what happens when you lean into the latter.
Flexibility Beats the Org Chart
As the organisation expanded, David initially took pride in its polished structure. His organisational chart was a thing of beauty: neat boxes, crisp lines of accountability, and layers of management that gave the impression of control. But he began to notice a pattern, while the chart looked efficient, decisions weren’t always effective.
One memory stands out, a new product was due to launch. The senior managers debated sales projections, marketing budgets, and operational capacity. Weeks of meetings passed, but when the launch finally came, frontline sales reps highlighted flaws that should have been obvious. Pricing was confusing, packaging was clunky, and the customer journey didn’t match reality. The launch limped rather than soared.
David began to wonder: what if the chart itself was holding him back?
That question led him to experiment with a different rhythm. Instead of always defaulting to the same group, he began inviting in new people, sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently, based on the decision at hand. Warehouse supervisors, customer service staff, and junior marketers found themselves sitting alongside senior managers. At first it felt disruptive, but the quality of decisions shifted dramatically.
This was where he connected deeply with ideas I’ve explored in confirmation bias and leadership. By consciously designing in dissent, red teams, devil’s advocates, and voices from outside the hierarchy, David created what his business had always lacked: a true challenge function. Meetings stopped being echo chambers, assumptions were tested, risks surfaced earlier, and slowly, decisions got better.
The adjustment wasn’t only structural, it was emotional. Senior managers had to accept that being left out of a meeting didn’t mean they were less valued, it meant their time was more valued, and it meant decisions were being made with the best information, not the neatest hierarchy. David reminded them often that these conversations were about making the wisest choices for the business, and that the right voices needed to be heard at the right moments.
The real win was momentum because projects stopped stalling. Instead of discovering flaws post-launch, his teams could adjust course midstream. The business grew sharper, more agile, and increasingly unified. People felt more connected to outcomes because they had helped shape them.
For leaders reading this, it’s worth asking: who might you be overlooking today that could change the quality of tomorrow’s decisions?
Killing the Tyranny of “They”
The third lesson began with a subtle observation rather than a glaring problem. David noticed how often the word “they” crept into conversations. “They’ve decided to change the bonus scheme.” “They want us to focus on a different product line.” Each time, responsibility floated upwards into a faceless group. And each time, accountability blurred.
Rather than waiting for it to damage culture, David chose to address it early. He decided that only one person in the business should ever answer to a “they.” For his company, that person was him, the MD, the link to the board. From that point on, he banned “they” from his leaders’ vocabulary. If a decision was made in a meeting, each leader had to communicate it as our decision or my decision. Accountability now had a clear face and name.
He reinforced this culturally by writing ownership into roles. Just as I argued in who owns sustainability, he began making clear: responsibility needed to live in specific roles. If sustainability mattered, it was written into the warehouse manager’s role, the buyer’s decisions, the customer experience team’s targets. Ownership was embedded at every level.
The difference was visible. Before, a manager might say: “They’ve decided to roll out a new reporting process.” The team would roll their eyes, frustrated at the faceless decision-makers. After, the same manager would say: “I’ve decided to implement a new reporting process, and here’s why.” This time, the team leaned in with questions, challenges, and suggestions. Decisions felt closer and more open. Teams knew who to ask, who to challenge, and who to follow. Disagreements became healthier, faster, and ultimately far more productive.
It took some courage for leaders to step into that level of accountability, but the payoff was profound. Credibility soared. The shadowy presence of “they” disappeared. People started to trust decisions again because they came with voices they knew and could engage with directly.
Every leader has heard the phrase “they decided.” David’s story is a reminder of how quickly that language can drain ownership, and how powerful it is when leaders step up and own the message themselves.
The Systems Beneath the Surface
Looking back, David realises the common thread: systems create behaviours. For years, he thought culture was about charisma, passion, and hiring “the right kind of people.” What he missed was that invisible systems were shaping behaviours every day. A rushed recruitment process encouraged short-term thinking. A rigid org chart narrowed input. Casual use of “they” eroded ownership. It hadn’t been deliberate, yet the systems shaped behaviour all the same.
He also came to see system design not as a one-off project, but as a discipline. Just as financial results are reviewed quarterly, he began reviewing his leadership systems regularly with his team. Were recruitment processes still surfacing the right people? Were meetings still drawing in the voices closest to the action? Was accountability still anchored in individuals, not faceless groups? By treating systems as living frameworks, he kept them evolving as the business evolved.
As the systems matured, so did the culture. Behaviours shifted in everyday work, ownership took root, decisions sped up, and trust deepened. The culture no longer relied on slogans or reminders; it was reinforced naturally through the way work happened.
By designing better systems David liberated not just his people, but his business. Recruitment became about ownership and growth. Decision-making became sharper, faster, and more inclusive. And accountability became personal, not abstract.
The Difference Today
Today, David still works hard, but his role feels different. He no longer spends time firefighting or rehashing decisions. Instead, he sees a leadership team that owns outcomes, a workforce that feels heard, and a culture where responsibility sticks. His business is scaling again, not through hustle alone, but through clarity.
I share his journey not as a tidy case study, but as a mirror for the conversations I’ve had with countless leaders. His lessons aren’t unique, they are universal patterns of growth, resistance, and clarity. My hope is that by seeing them through his story, you can reflect more clearly on your own.
When asked about his journey, David often shares not just advice, but the questions he continues to return to himself:
- Am I hiring for responsibility, or just filling roles?
- Do the right people have a voice in our biggest decisions, regardless of their place on the chart?
- When we communicate decisions, do we hide behind “they,” or do we own them as leaders?
They are questions worth sitting with because the answers shape not just a business, but the culture it grows into.
He often tells peers who ask for advice: “If you don’t design your systems, your systems will design you. And you may not like what they decide.”
For further reflections on these themes, you may find these helpful: –
Building a team that can scale with your business –
How to get recruitment right first time –
How to get recruitment right first time – Part 2 –
How confirmation bias limits leadership and business growth –
Who owns sustainability in your organisation?
Mark Jarvis
6x Founder | Interim MD | NED | Coach & Mentor
Author of:
The Very Best Business Handbook You’ll Ever Own
The 63 Point Business Blueprint
Work with me:
I build companies worth owning by supporting owners, founders and leaders to create a scalable business that works without them, Book a call with me here to ask a question and get started.
Remember, there are only three types of people – those who make things happen, those who wait for things to happen, and those who talk about why things don’t happen for them. Which one are you?
Recent Comments