Every leader carries forward a set of instincts that once worked, often because those instincts are the reason the business exists at all. The trouble is that success has a way of disguising its own expiration date. An approach doesn't announce that it has stopped serving the business; it simply keeps producing enough good outcomes to feel justified, even as the gap between what it delivers and what the business now needs quietly widens.
Michael Sjolie, CEO of SJOLIE, has described how founder-level involvement in every significant decision was the safeguard that maintained quality in the company's early years, and how that same involvement became a bottleneck once the business scaled past what any founder could personally oversee.
From his perspective, the hardest part wasn't spotting a single bad decision. It was recognizing that good people were waiting too long to act, and that the waiting itself had become more costly than any individual call the founders were making.
Reading the Signal Before It Becomes a Pattern
Evidence that an approach has stopped working rarely arrives as a single clear moment. It tends to show up first as friction: a delay here, a bottleneck there, something that looks like a rough patch rather than a structural problem. Leaders who catch it early are usually the ones paying attention to small, repeatable indicators rather than waiting for a dramatic failure.
In practice, that means tracking a short list of concrete signals, response times, error rates, or how often decisions stall waiting on one person, rather than re-evaluating every choice from scratch. Steve Kifer, Manager at Ritzy Room, found that handling every guest interaction personally worked well when the portfolio was small, but began slowing things down as it scaled. The signal wasn't one bad night. It was a gradual lag in response times that, once noticed, pointed to a structural mismatch rather than a temporary dip.
Separating the Judgment From the Method
The distinction that seems to matter most across founders who've successfully unlearned an old approach is separating why something worked from how it was delivered. The underlying judgment, the instinct for quality, for client care, for technical rigor, is often still sound. It's the method built around that judgment that has a shelf life.
Andrey Kudievskiy, CEO and Founder of Distillery, found that staying deeply involved in technical decisions across every client engagement was a genuine differentiator early on, and became a bottleneck as the company grew. The best outcomes were happening on engagements where his involvement was minimal, a pattern he describes as uncomfortable precisely because it contradicted his own mental model of what drove quality.
Matt Benton, CEO & Founder at Real Time Marketing, has described how staying personally involved in every client relationship was the instinct that built the agency's early reputation, and the same instinct that became a ceiling as it scaled. Clients getting the best results were on campaigns run by documented processes rather than personal attention, a sign the system was outperforming the instinct.
Execution, in his account, meant identifying what the original habit was actually protecting, quality control, and finding a process that protected the same thing without requiring his personal presence in every interaction.
When Market Conditions Change Faster Than the Playbook
Sometimes the approach that stops working wasn't a leadership habit at all, but a strategy built for a market that no longer exists. John "Brad" Spurgeon, Owner of Brad Spurgeon Insurance Agency, spent two decades building deep relationships with a small number of carriers, an approach that worked well while the Texas coastal market stayed stable. When carriers began exiting coastal markets at scale, that depth wasn't transferable to the surplus lines relationships the agency suddenly needed.
What made the shift difficult wasn't a lack of evidence. It was that the old approach was still producing results even as conditions changed underneath it, leaving a reasonable case for staying the course each quarter. Spurgeon separates the judgment that built the original approach from the conditions that made it work: the judgment can stay, even when the conditions it was built for are gone.
Why Letting Go Feels Like Losing Part of What Built the Business
Unlearning is difficult less because of the practical cost and more because success becomes tied to identity. An approach that worked becomes part of how a leader understands their own value, which makes questioning it feel like questioning what made the business succeed in the first place.
Yamen Mahfoud, Sales and Marketing Director at Bees Lighting, points to this pattern directly. Early growth at the company came from aggressive, product-focused sales conversations that moved inventory quickly, an approach that created transactional relationships that disappeared the moment a competitor undercut on price. The shift toward education-first consultations only became clear once contractors and designers started asking for technical guidance instead of product catalogs, a signal that the market itself had moved beyond what the original approach could serve.
Unlearning Without Losing Confidence
None of the leaders here describe their original instincts as mistakes. They describe them as correct for a specific size, market, or moment, and increasingly out of step as conditions moved on. The skill isn't abandoning judgment. It's recognizing that judgment and method are two different things, and that only one of them needs to survive the next stage of growth.
Sign in to leave a comment.