Expertise stuck in your head, sold one custom project at a time... how do you turn it into an offer that compounds instead of a treadmill? Work it out with peers making the same leap: https://inspiringfounders.com …more
Scaling
Work by Michael Ashley · Everyone on Scaling
M
Michael Ashley
Founder at Radi8 // Executive Coach // Host of the Inspiring Founders Podcast
I spend an hour on every client call so it’s impossible to scale beyond 4-6 calls per day. That’s why it’s so important to capture your message and go from 1:1 to 1-to-many. You can do this through webinars, workshops, speaking engagements, events, publishing books, YouTube videos, even small groups. You have to figure out how to scale your message if you want to scale your business. How are you scaling today? Need help, send me a message. …more
This post has video.
Watch it on the channel.
M
Michael Ashley
Founder at Radi8 // Executive Coach // Host of the Inspiring Founders Podcast
When I built my first startup back in 2007, I had to work in a future that didn't exist yet.
It wasn't a better printing press. We took the old publishing supply chain, broke it into pieces, and rebuilt them digitally — print-on-demand, zero inventory, mass electronic distribution, and integration with the brand-new e-book world. There was no playbook. You can't optimize something that's never been done.
Peter Thiel has a useful name for this. In Zero to One he splits progress into two kinds. Going from 0 to 1 is invention — doing something genuinely new. Going from 1 to n is what he calls globalization: taking something that already works and making more of it, better and faster and cheaper. His point is that a lot of what we call progress is really the second kind, not the first.
Both matter. But they're different jobs, and they reward different people.
I did the 0→1 part. Since then, others made digital publishing better, faster, and cheaper — Amazon's Kindle platform made publishing a book so easy it's almost a crime. The people who built and scaled that are very different from me. And that's exactly how it should be. There's even research behind it: studying 200+ startups, Noam Wasserman found founders often get replaced as their company grows — not for failing, but because succeeding changes the job into a different one. Success exposes the mismatch; it doesn't remove it.
So here's the distinction I'd make after 25 years of this:
A builder makes it exist. An operator makes it bigger. Most good things stall the moment you ask one to be the other.
Two different jobs. Two different kinds of people.
Most stalls I get called into aren't talent problems. They're a mismatch — someone brilliant at one job asked to do the other, or one person trying to do both at once.
So before you hire, or beat yourself up for being stuck: name the job you actually need right now.
Which one is your initiative actually stuck on — building it, or making it bigger? …more
Told 5 times, Jun 24, 2026 – Jul 9, 2026
· LinkedIn · Open
A quick one to close the week.
This week I've been writing about how building something and scaling it are two different jobs — a builder makes it exist, an operator makes it bigger — and how most stalls come from asking one person, or one hire, to do both.
So here's the question I'd actually like you to answer:
The initiative that's stuck right now — is it stuck on building it, or on making it bigger?
Be specific if you can. Is it a 0-to-1 problem, where the thing doesn't fully exist yet and needs someone comfortable inventing in the fog? Or a scaling problem, where it works but won't reliably repeat, and needs someone who builds systems and consistency?
Naming which one it is tends to be half the fix. Drop yours in the comments — I'll read every one and reply.
· X · Open
The initiative that's stuck right now — is it stuck on building it, or on making it bigger?
Building something and scaling it are two different jobs. Naming which one you're missing is usually half the fix.
So which is it?
· LinkedIn · Open
The biggest mistake I see founders make: assuming every great builder should become an operator.
They're different jobs that reward different instincts.
A builder takes an idea everyone agrees should exist and makes it real. Ambiguity energizes them. A blank page is a playground, not a threat. But ask that same person to run a mature, optimized machine for years and they get restless and bored.
An operator is the opposite. Hand them something that works and they'll make it bigger, tighter, more profitable. They turn a foundation into a franchise. But drop them into a 0→1 mess with no map, and the lack of structure can be paralyzing.
Neither is better. Neither is a flaw. They're built for different phases of the same journey.
The trouble starts when we pretend they're interchangeable — when we promote a brilliant builder into an operating seat and call it growth, or hire a world-class operator to invent something from nothing and wonder why it stalls.
The best ventures I've seen are relay races, not solo runs. A builder gets it standing. An operator makes it soar. The handoff between them is where the real value compounds.
So before you hire — or before you judge yourself for not loving the phase you're in — ask which one you actually are. And then go find the other.
Which one are you?
· X · Open
A builder makes it exist. An operator makes it bigger. Most good things stall the moment you ask one to be the other.
M
Michael Ashley
Founder at Radi8 // Executive Coach // Host of the Inspiring Founders Podcast
Put a builder in a mature operating role and watch them get restless. Everything already works, so they start breaking things just to have something to invent. Put an operator into a 0-to-1 mess and watch them freeze — there's no system to optimize yet, no data to trust, nothing to make more efficient. Both are talented. Both are miserable. And both look like performance problems when they're really fit problems.
I've watched this play out on team after team. The builder who was electric in the early days becomes the bottleneck once the thing needs to scale. The seasoned operator who took someone else's company from ten million to a hundred can't get a blank page off the ground. Neither failed. They were each asked to do the other one's job.
There's research behind why this is so predictable. Studying 200+ startups, Noam Wasserman found that founders are most likely to be pushed out right after their biggest wins — because success changes the job. What comes next rewards a different set of instincts than what got them there. The person didn't get worse. The job changed under them.
The takeaway isn't "builders are better" or "operators are better." It's that they're different, and the strongest ventures pair them on purpose — an inventor to make it exist, an operator to make it endure. The mistake is expecting one person to be both, or hiring the wrong one for the moment you're actually in.
So before you hire, get honest about which one you are — and which one you're missing.
Are you the builder or the operator on your team? And who's the counterpart you still need? …more
Told 2 times, Jul 7, 2026
· X · Open
Put a builder in a mature role and they break things just to have something to invent. Put an operator in a 0-to-1 mess and they freeze.
Both are talented. Both look like performance problems. They're fit problems.
Channel names and logos are trademarks of their respective owners.