Managing Challenges of Growing Startups!

Advice from Yev Pusin, Former Head of Comms and 15-year veteran at Backblaze (NASDAQ: BLZE), Limited Partner at The Pitch Fund and Sidecut Ventures, and Angel Squad/Hustle Fund. Yev was the Head of Communications and Community at Backblaze, which he joined in 2011. He has a degree in business and communications from the University of Iowa, where he developed an affinity for alliteration. Yev enjoys writing in an amusing way about the "why" of things and how decisions are made, so that readers can learn and be entertained all at once. Follow Yev on LinkedIn: Yev Pusin

The Failure Modes I’ve Seen Break Growing Companies

One of the strange things about building companies is that the problems change as you grow. Early on, the challenge is usually survival. You are trying to find customers, build something people want, and figure out how to do more with fewer resources. Everyone is close to the work, and communication happens naturally because only a few people are involved.

Then, if things go well, the company starts growing. You hire more people. You have more customers. You have more resources. You have more opportunities. And suddenly, the things that helped you survive can become the things that hold you back.

Over the years, I have seen a handful of failure modes recur in growing companies. Some came from mistakes I made myself. Others came from watching smart, capable people struggle with problems that were not obvious until they became expensive. The interesting thing is that most company failures are not caused by bad people or bad intentions. They usually happen because the company evolves faster than its systems, communication patterns, and decision-making processes. Growth creates complexity, and complexity creates new ways to fail.

When Chaos Becomes the Operating System

When things start to break inside a company, the natural reaction is to jump into fix-it mode. Something is wrong. Someone needs to solve it. But one of the biggest lessons I have learned is that chaos is almost always a symptom, not the root cause. If a team is overwhelmed, if things are constantly falling through the cracks, or if execution starts slowing down, the first question should not be, "How do we fix this?" The first question should be, "Why is this happening?"

Sometimes the best thing you can do is bring in someone with a fresh perspective. That might be a coach, an advisor, or simply someone from another part of the organization who does not have the same history or assumptions. When I have done this internally, I usually start by talking to people and asking simple questions: What is working? What is not working? Where are things breaking? What is making your job harder than it needs to be? The goal is not to immediately identify who caused the problem. The goal is to understand the system that created the problem.

Chaos can come from many places. Sometimes the strategy is unclear. Sometimes priorities are constantly shifting. Sometimes people are not aligned. Sometimes the company simply does not have enough resources. You can have great people, a strong vision, and a healthy culture, but if two people are doing the work of eleven people, chaos will eventually appear. The mistake is allowing chaos to become the normal operating system.

Hiring in a Panic Creates Problems Later

Another failure mode I have seen repeatedly is hiring too quickly. This is especially common in growing companies because the pressure feels very real. The team is overloaded. Everyone is stretched thin. A position has been open for too long. Finally, someone comes along who seems good enough. The temptation is obvious: "We need someone. Let's get them started."Sometimes that works. But more often, hiring from desperation creates problems that show up later. The question quietly changes from, "Who is the right person for this role?" to, "Who can start the fastest?" Those are very different questions.

One thing I recommend is making sure you have at least two or three candidates in the process, even if the first person seems like the obvious choice. The benefit is not just comparison. The process itself helps the company understand what it actually needs. I saw this many times at Backblaze. The job description we started with was not always the job description we ended with. As we talked to more candidates, we learned more about what skills mattered and what success in the role actually looked like. The hiring process itself became a way to calibrate.

There is nuance here. Not every role requires the same level of evaluation. Some positions are tactical. Sometimes you need someone who can execute a clearly defined task. But for roles that require judgment, ownership, and strategic thinking, rushing the process usually creates more work later. A bad hire does not just affect that person’s role. It affects the people around them, the culture, and the company's ability to execute.

The Problem With Unlimited Possibilities

Another failure mode is giving people overly open-ended problems. Leaders often think they are empowering people when they say, "Go figure it out." But unlimited freedom can actually make decision-making harder. Humans are not great at processing completely unconstrained problems. If someone says, "You have unlimited budget. Build the best solution possible," that sounds exciting. But the first questions are: What does "best" mean? How much time do we have? How many people can help? What tradeoffs are acceptable? Without constraints, people can spend a tremendous amount of time creating solutions that are impossible to execute. I have learned that constraints are actually useful. They give people something to work within and something to push against.

Earlier in my career, I struggled with this because I thought the best answer was always to keep possibilities open. Eventually, I realized that good decision-making requires boundaries. I remember working on a price increase that I personally disagreed with. I was part of the executive team, and the expectation was clear: you could disagree, but once a decision was made, you committed and moved forward. When I came back with my plan, I started by explaining why I thought it was a risky decision. Then I said, "Given those constraints, here is how I think we can execute this as effectively as possible." That created a much better conversation because we were no longer debating an abstract idea. We were solving a specific problem.

Now, when I am given an open-ended assignment, I create my own constraints. What assumptions am I making? What resources do I realistically have? What limitations should I consider? Then, when I present my recommendation, I explain those assumptions. That is also a great way to demonstrate strategic thinking. Especially earlier in your career, being able to explain your assumptions shows people that you are thinking beyond the immediate task.

Not All Chaos Is Bad — But Unmanaged Chaos Is

Startups are chaotic by nature. They have to be. You are building something that does not exist yet. You are experimenting. You are moving into uncertainty. That kind of chaos is productive. The problem is when chaos becomes permanent. As companies scale, the number of variables increases dramatically. Going from ten people to fifty people is not just adding forty more people. It is adding new communication paths, new decisions, and new complexity. That is where leaders need to pay attention.

When chaos starts taking over, I think the first questions should be: "When did this change?" "What caused this?" "Why are people feeling this way?" Because chaos changes how people operate. People move into scarcity mode. They become defensive. They stop thinking strategically. They are not thinking about six months from now because they are trying to survive the next few days.

The solution depends on the situation. Sometimes you need more resources. Sometimes you need to move people around. Sometimes you need to extend deadlines. Sometimes you simply need someone to jump in and help a team get back above water. I have always been a generalist by nature, and one of the things I was good at was moving between teams when they needed help. Sometimes the solution is not a massive reorganization. Sometimes a team just needs someone to help clear the path.

The Conversations People Are Afraid to Have

One thing I have learned is that you cannot always rely on people to tell you when things are too much. You can ask in a group setting, "Are things chaotic right now?" But many people will not answer honestly. They may not want to appear incapable. They may worry about how it reflects on them. They may feel like admitting they need help is a weakness. That is why these conversations are often better one-on-one. Managers need to create environments where people can say, "This is too much." "We need help." "We are falling behind." But creating that space is only the first step. The manager has to take action. There is no point encouraging honesty if people learn that nothing changes after they speak up.

When Brands Forget They Are Talking to Humans

Another failure mode I have seen is companies becoming too polished too early. This often happens in marketing, social media, and community building. Companies are starting to treat communication like a transaction. Share the announcement. Promote the product. Highlight the success. But communities are built through relationships. Social media is just one form of community. The same principles apply to events, forums, customer groups, and conversations with users. The most important thing is authenticity. The mistake is treating people like an audience rather than as people. That does not mean sharing every internal problem or looking for sympathy. But talking honestly about things that did not work can actually build trust. If you pulled a feature, explain why. If a project failed, explain what you learned. If something was delayed, explain the thinking behind it. Those moments can become powerful brand-building opportunities. People do not connect with perfection. They connect with honesty.

The Translator’s Role Inside a Technical Company

When I first joined Backblaze, there were nine people, and I was the youngest person by about a decade. Most people had engineering or highly technical backgrounds. I came from communications. At first, that difference felt like a disadvantage. Eventually, I realized it was one of my strengths. I became a translator. Everything that went onto our blog had to pass through what I jokingly called the "Yev filter." My job was to ask, "Will someone outside this room understand this?" The goal was not to make technical ideas less technical. The goal was to make them understandable.

Companies need translators. People who can connect engineers with customers, technical teams with business teams, and complex ideas with simple explanations. A company can build incredible technology, but if people cannot understand why it matters, the value gets lost.

Growth Does Not Remove Problems — It Changes Them

The hardest part of building a company is not creating growth. It is adapting to what growth creates. The same behaviors that help a small team survive can become problems at scale. Move fast, but do not stop thinking. Hire quickly, but do not hire carelessly. Embrace chaos, but do not let chaos become the operating system. Create freedom, but give people constraints. Build a brand, but do not lose the humans behind it.

The companies that scale successfully are not the ones that eliminate every problem. They are the ones that recognize problems early and build the ability to solve them. The goal is not a company without chaos. The goal is a company that knows what to do when chaos arrives.