Summary: 

• First-time founders struggle with product-market fit: Many assume their original product deserves a market, which is hugely damaging. Be prepared to let your idea die instead of your company.
• Balancing product purity with commercial success: We can feel conflicted when we need to adjust our vision to meet commercial realities, but this balance is essential for scaling.
• Growth leads to disconnection: As companies grow, we may feel distanced from the product as the focus shifts to financial returns, hiring, and operations, which can feel less fulfilling, this is something you have to come to terms with.
• Effective teams are often composed of individuals who have strong "spikes" in specific areas and who may be slightly broken, driven by something to prove. I know I am. 
• Founders must transition from hands-on control to empowering their teams, recognizing when to let go of responsibilities to let others shine.

‍Five Highlights for Founders:

1. Balance Vision and Commercial Viability. First-time founders often cling to their original vision, believing the market will come to them. Success requires humility—sacrificing parts of that vision for commercial viability isn’t selling out; it’s ensuring growth and sustainability.
2. Efficient Growth Over Headcount. Every hire reflects a gap in productivity or scalability. Founders should focus on building teams that drive exponential results rather than relying on growing headcount as a measure of success.
3. Build Teams for the Future. The best teams aren’t filled with all-rounders but with "spikes"—individuals who excel in specific areas. Founders should hire for the company they want to build, not just replicate talent from other successful companies.
4. Trust Your Instincts The worst mistakes often stem from ignoring your gut. Founders need to make decisions they can fully stand behind, especially when it comes to hiring and strategic choices.
5. Avoid Startup Distractions: Constantly attending startup events can be a major distraction. Focus on building your business, consuming relevant knowledge efficiently, and channeling energy into growth rather than appearances.

What are some common misconceptions about building a startup (particularly regarding the perception that it is a linear process)?

I believe the saying that "first-time founders obsess about product, while second-time founders obsess about distribution" holds true. I'd add that the challenge for first-time founders—myself included—is feeling like the original insight deserves a market. This is a dangerous mindset because it leads to frustration when customers "don't get it." It's not just about the balance between product and distribution, but also the humility to recognise that sacrificing some of the original vision for commercial viability isn’t selling out.

Many founders are artists at heart, often purists, and the initial validation from early investors can lead them to believe the market deserves their product. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that initial enthusiasm equates to market success. But as you hit different revenue milestones, it’s like being in a band—you sometimes start to dislike playing your hits. Founders can miss the early days when the product had niche appeal and early investors were deeply engaged.

As growth accelerates, it’s common to feel disconnected, especially when the focus shifts from product to financial returns. Growth investors aren’t invested in the zero-to-one journey—they’re in it for the financial upside, like targeting a 3x return. It's a complicated feeling as a founder, but ultimately, you need to be able to look in the mirror and accept the trade-offs necessary for success.

To what extent has overcoming inflection points been a critical challenge for you and the business?

What’s worked well for us is gaining a deeper understanding of market dynamics. For example, in 2020, while we didn’t get the funding market right, we did recognize the need to move beyond SMB as a pure category to maintain over 50% growth. That decision was crucial for our long-term strategy and set us up for the next phase.

This ties into the importance of segmentation and distribution. You don’t have to be overly precise, but understanding where you have product-market fit and where the next challenge lies is key. Often, this requires going through another “hard startup phase” to achieve product-market fit for the next stage of growth.

Interestingly, I often feel the opposite of what most founders might about company size. Rather than focusing on how many people we need, I constantly ask myself, “How many fewer people could we have at this stage?” To me, hiring more people signals that we haven’t scaled as efficiently as we should. It suggests that the team isn’t eking out exponential productivity from themselves, which is often the case in many companies.

This extends to how I view certain functions, like customer success. If customer success is necessary, it indicates a failure of the product to some extent. It’s normal to have support, but we should still recognise it as a product gap. Similarly, if you need more salespeople to drive sales, it means your current sales team hasn’t scaled effectively.

Ultimately, every hire reflects a failure in productivity. While it's essential to have a growing and diverse team to build the company, it’s critical to maintain a mindset that pushes for efficiency and scalability rather than simply increasing headcount. 

How have you as a founder and a CEO, had to adapt to these changes?

I think of myself as a gardener—just pruning and shaping things as needed. It’s similar to the role of a film producer. The producer isn’t the director or the actor, but they’re the one who gets the Oscar at the end. It’s for the right reasons, even though there are other, more visible faces involved. I've always liked that analogy, and my perspective hasn’t really changed.

What has been challenging, though, is helping others think the same way. Many people, especially Type A personalities and executives, feel they need to prove their ability to others. It’s a difficult shift, getting them to realise that their job is not to constantly prove their worth but to create space for others to shine.

It’s like that famous idea from Steve Jobs about hiring people who can think for you. People often have a tough time with this concept, as it can be hard to admit that someone else might be better than them in a particular area. But I believe that when you’ve become good at something, that’s exactly when you should let it go. That’s the moment when you know what skills you need to hire for because you’ve internalised what success in that area looks like.

‍What have been the biggest challenges you have faced building your leadership team and which have been the most important hires?

The first and most significant hire was, without a doubt, Matt Welle, our CEO. Looking back to 2012, I had a feeling he would be great, and it’s incredible to see how exceptional he’s become. 

If I were to give myself any credit, it would be in recognizing my own limitations early on, and part of that comes from having siblings. Working with them helps you realise quickly where you fall short. I think it’s often hard for people who see themselves as clever to acknowledge their inherent limitations.

I’ve always been self-aware enough to know what I’m terrible at and what I’m good at, and that’s served me well. In building leadership teams, I’ve found that good teams are filled with "spikes"—people who are exceptional in specific areas—but not all-rounders. You only need a few solid all-rounders. In fact, I believe that "broken" or slightly damaged people often make the best hires. They have this inner drive, a feeling of emptiness or something to prove, which pushes them to be even better. That’s why you see so many brilliant but slightly damaged individuals—they’re motivated to reach extraordinary heights.

‍What do you wish someone had told you about your startup journey that would have helped you reach 100 million revenue faster

The thing is, I’m not sure if I built Mews the right way. Looking back, it’s easy to say, "Of course, I’m a genius," but I don’t actually believe that’s true. So much of it was accidental. Meeting Honza was an accident. Meeting Matt was an accident. Take Leah Anathan —why did she stand out? Why was I so determined to get her on board, even when other CMOs were interested? I don’t know, but I’m so glad I did.

It’s that hindsight bias where everything looks good after the fact. I’m not sure what I’d say about the process, but one thing I hear a lot is, "I wish I had trusted my gut more" or "I wish I made decisions faster." But sometimes the real growth comes from going through the pain—feeling embarrassed by a decision, or realizing things stagnated for too long because we didn’t move fast enough.

When you hit approximately $30m what were the most important things you did to reach $100m?

The key thing about growth is that, in the beginning, every company starts out like an army relying on fast, agile tactics, almost like guerrilla warfare. But as you grow, it transitions into something more like Total War, where you're grinding down the competition. The important takeaway here is that you need to build out as many attack vectors as your resources will allow, and not all of these need to be expensive.

For example, we decided to start M&A after our Series A, and that decision came from an understanding of the market. It's too fragmented and slow to win purely on brand or product. Similarly with payments—we realised that payments needed to be a core part of our offering, not an optional feature. I think of these initiatives not just as product lines, but as attack vectors. Not having enough attack vectors when your next phase of growth comes can be what kills a company.

For example, take Strawberry [a prominent hotel brand in the Nordic region, having recently rebranded from Nordic Choice Hotels].That deal happened because we were able to show a big customer that we could handle both M&A and the integrations that come with it. It was like winning an RFP, but instead of just asking if we could manage them as a large client, the RFP also asked, "Can you manage all the other businesses we're bringing along?" If we hadn’t demonstrated the breadth of our capabilities—at least the perception that we were broad enough to handle this—we wouldn’t have had the chance to win that business.

I think this highlights an important point: when moving from SMB to mid-market with a singular product strategy, you need to know what you stand for. It's like your greatest hits—you're clear on your sound, and you're not letting the customer dictate that. It's similar to how all of Status Quo's songs sound the same, yet they've released multiple successful albums. It's about knowing your strengths and sticking to them.

The key is being able to translate your sound effectively across different settings. Maybe music isn't the perfect analogy, but it's about making sure what works in a garage or a bar also works in a stadium like Wembley. If you know what your sound is, you can scale it. Over time, you can bring in collaborators and experiment with different elements, but it's essential to understand what you want it to look like when you're playing on the biggest stage.

What advice did you receive early in your journey that you initially ignored but later realised was crucial?

I was given advice to only hire 'game changers,' and at the time, it felt right. But now I understand what that really means. It’s tough for every VC-backed company, especially at the Series A stage. You need to stay open to bringing in people who will make you better. As a good founder, you likely love your team and have been through a lot together, so it's hard to think critically about who may not be the right fit. Everyone tells you to view it like a sports team, but naturally, you see your team more like a family, and it’s difficult to imagine anyone not being good enough.

You start thinking, "They can grow, they can develop," because you've seen their potential. But at some point, you have to step back and ask yourself: How does this person fit into the ideal future of the company? It’s easy to look at successful companies and think you need people from those teams. You begin interpreting game-changers as people who have already done it elsewhere, instead of thinking about how to build the team that can become that next great company.

This distinction is critical, and it’s something I had to learn the hard way. You want to build a team that grows into that future, not just import someone who’s already been there. It’s more about finding the right people who can add to the DNA of the company and help create the next version of who you are, rather than someone who doesn't assimilate or help you evolve.

What are the biggest mistakes you made that you would encourage others to avoid?

In leadership positions, it's crucial to trust your gut. Overthinking can lead to poor decisions, while the best choices often come from instinct because they feel truly your own. The worst mistakes are the ones where you second-guessed yourself, not trusting your judgment.

Making decisions with your gut is more than just an intellectual process—it's emotional, a whole-body experience. If you can't fully commit to a decision or stand behind someone else's, you end up feeling exposed. Mistakes are inevitable, especially in hiring, but what's important is recognizing who you’d be willing to stand behind, even when they make errors. It's about knowing who you’d take a bullet for and being ready to support them, no matter what.

What is the one thing founders should avoid or say no to in their role as CEO to accelerate business growth and reach $100 million in revenue?

One thing I wish people would avoid is attending too many startup events! The biggest red flag for me is founders who are constantly at SaaS conferences. I truly believe it can be corrosive.

I used to think it was really important to go to events like TechCrunch Disrupt, but looking back, you can get so caught up in the idea of “being a founder” that it becomes distracting. Instead of spending time attending these events, I think it’s much more valuable to consume that knowledge by reading or watching online content. It saves time and keeps your focus where it should be—on building your business.

‍As an aside, you are a voracious reader, so what are three books every founder should read?

One book I highly recommend is *The Carpenter and the Gardener* by Alison Gopnik. It explores two approaches to parenting—being a "carpenter" who shapes outcomes versus a "gardener" who nurtures growth. I think it’s one of the best management books I’ve come across, offering great insights on leadership beyond just child-rearing.

Another essential read is *The Hard Thing About Hard Things* by Ben Horowitz. It provides practical, no-nonsense advice on navigating the toughest challenges in building and scaling businesses. While it might seem over-recommended, it’s still an incredibly valuable resource.

Lastly, *Loonshots* by Safi Bahcall is a fascinating read on how nurturing crazy ideas leads to innovation. It’s another book that I think every tech founder should read.

Finally, what does success look like for you as a company and a founder?

Honestly, I’m a bit of a petty person. If I really think about it, a big part of what drives me is proving people wrong. I know it’s not the best answer, but I genuinely get a lot of satisfaction from it. I still remember when people told us they couldn’t see us reaching $100 million in value, let alone revenue. They had doubts about me, the idea, the team—everything. Success is about proving those people wrong, even if those doubts are sometimes invented. It may seem small-minded, but it's the most honest aspect of what motivates me. I love it.