Why some founding teams crash spectacularly after raising millions is a question that puzzles many in the startup world. We observed that it often traces back to a small issue they brushed aside until it became existential. We've seen this pattern repeatedly as investors - and it teaches us something profound about trust.
This Week On Practical Nerds - tl;dr
- Acknowledging weaknesses is a strength that exceptional founders embrace
- Covering up limitations with vague answers or white lies destroys trust
- The best founders obsessively identify their constraints to eliminate bottlenecks
🎧 Listen To This Practical Nerds Episode
How transparency about weaknesses builds investor confidence
Why being open about limitations creates stronger partnerships
When we at Foundamental talk to founders, we're not looking for perfection – we're looking for authenticity. One pattern we've noticed across hundreds of conversations is that many of the most impressive founders we meet aren't afraid to show us where they struggle.
It's a fascinating psychological dynamic. Think about it – who's typically more comfortable discussing their weaknesses? Usually, it's someone who knows they're pretty damn good overall. As Patric put it during our conversation, "Exceptional people know they're exceptional despite their flaws, so they're comfortable sharing those flaws."
This isn't just startup psychology. Consider any long-term relationship – would you actively hide your character flaws from someone you're planning to spend years with? Probably not. Yet for some reason, many founders approach investor relationships with a strange reluctance to show any cracks in their armor.
Patric shared a recent investment experience that really stuck with us: "The founders allowed me to see their weaknesses through references and self-reflection... If you make yourself vulnerable and the other person doesn't choose you, what have you lost? Nothing. You've actually just made an efficient selection."
We had a similar experience recently with a founder who straight-up challenged us: "You say your thesis is X, but you've backed companies that don't fit that description. Why?" Rather than giving some batshit crazy marketing answer, we shared the honest reasons. The result? Immediate trust.
These aren't isolated examples – they reflect a broader truth about human relationships. When someone shows us their real self, flaws and all, we're much more likely to engage authentically. It's not that vulnerability guarantees success, but hiding weaknesses almost always guarantees problems down the road.
The narrative we often see is that founders need to project unwavering confidence. But in our experience, the most effective founders balance confidence with honest self-assessment. They're not defined by their weaknesses – they're defined by how openly they address them.
Why small lies in founder pitches can lead to major trust breakdowns
How seemingly minor deceptions create relationship-ending consequences
The slippery slope often starts with what seems like an innocent evasion. A founder gets asked about a team departure, a competitive threat, or a missed milestone, and instead of addressing it directly, they opt for what they consider a harmless "white lie" or strategic omission.
But as Patric noted in our discussion, "It doesn't end with white lies. Because we don't stop there with our questioning, covering the initial small lie requires a bigger lie, then a bigger one, until one phone call breaks everything apart."
He shared a perfect example: "Remember that one call where someone told you this investor isn't investing because of a specific reason? And then the founder didn't know you were close friends with that investor, who told you they'd never even spoken to the founder? At that point, it becomes impossible to focus on anything else."
The startup ecosystem is surprisingly small. References get checked, stories get verified, and inconsistencies eventually surface. We're not expecting founders to be perfect – we're expecting them to be honest, especially about their imperfections.
What's particularly unfortunate is that these situations often involve challenges that wouldn't have been dealbreakers if addressed transparently. As Patric put it: "That's a professional athlete's mindset. Elite athletes study film of their movements, acknowledge mistakes, and commit to improvement. They spend hours, even years, analyzing what went wrong to ensure better performance next time."
We've also noticed a pattern of vagueness that raises similar red flags. When pressed about specific issues, some founders respond with increasingly abstract explanations or lengthy monologues that never quite address the question. Patric described a recent call: "The founder didn't answer the very specific question but went into a 25-minute monologue and ended by saying, 'I know this hasn't been specific, but I hope you understand the vision now.'"
This creates what we call an "anti-onion" effect – instead of each conversation layer revealing deeper insights, discussions become increasingly abstract and detached from concrete reality.
When these patterns emerge, we find ourselves shifting focus from evaluating the business to questioning the foundation of trust itself. And once that happens, even the most brilliant strategy or market opportunity struggles to overcome that fundamental concern.
How identifying bottlenecks drives exponential startup growth
The critical practice of constraint recognition for scaling businesses
One of the most powerful patterns we've observed in successful companies is their founders' relentless focus on identifying and eliminating bottlenecks. This isn't just a helpful practice – it appears to be fundamental to achieving breakthrough growth.
The theory of constraints offers a systematic approach to this process. It provides a framework for pinpointing exactly what's holding you or your organization back at any given moment. Without this discipline, improvement tends to be random rather than targeted.
During our conversation, we explained it this way: "If you're unwilling to acknowledge or share or even identify what your constraint is, by definition, you will not improve. The same holds true if you extend it from a leader to the organization. If you're not willing to acknowledge the weakness of the organization, that organization is probably not going to improve."
Many of the most successful founders we've worked with constantly ask: "What's the current bottleneck in our company?" They analyze constraints methodically and work to eliminate them one by one. This approach often creates the conditions for nonlinear growth.
The alternative approach is problematic. Founders who avoid acknowledging specific constraints typically resort to general explanations: "the market is bad," "sentiment has changed," or other vague narratives. These generalizations might provide psychological comfort, but they rarely lead to targeted improvement.
This principle extends beyond business strategy to personal development. Patric noted, "Sometimes you made a conscious decision based on an assumption that turned out wrong. What's so harmful about saying that? If you don't discuss it, how can you learn to make better assumptions next time?"
The challenge is that many founders don't actively recognize their constraints. When discussing past challenges, they tend to attribute failures to circumstances rather than decisions. This isn't necessarily intentional deception – it's often a lack of rigorous self-analysis. But the effect on growth can be similar.
The founders who seem to create the most value don't just acknowledge weaknesses when cornered – they actively hunt for them, recognizing that each constraint identified and addressed unlocks new levels of performance.
Conclusion: Building Trust Through Transparency
To build genuine trust with investors and team members alike, we recommend considering a personal inventory of your limitations and past mistakes as a starting point. Practice articulating these challenges in ways that demonstrate learning rather than defensiveness. It's also valuable to implement a regular practice to identify constraints in yourself and your organization, creating a systematic approach to improvement. Work toward fostering a culture where identifying bottlenecks is valued and rewarded, not punished or hidden away. And perhaps most importantly, when faced with difficult questions, resist the natural instinct to be vague or defensive - direct transparency, even when uncomfortable, builds the foundation for lasting relationships and sustainable growth.
You Can Find More Analysis On The Practical Nerds Podcast
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/1Q86tEwusNGwAmRdDqjFL4
Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/de/podcast/practical-nerds/id1689880222
Foundamental: https://www.foundamental.com/
Subscribe to the Newsletter: https://www.linkedin.com/newsletters/practical-nerds-7180899738613882881/
Follow The Practical Nerds
Patric Hellermann: https://www.linkedin.com/in/aecvc/
Shub Bhattacharya: https://www.linkedin.com/in/shubhankar-bhattacharya-a1063a3/
#StartupTransparency #InvestorTrust #GrowthBottlenecks