
The Psychological Cost Of Scaling A Company Too Quickly Is Huge
In a fast-growing company, roles shift overnight.
Rapid growth looks impressive from the outside. New hires, new markets and fresh rounds of funding signal momentum. Inside, though, the experience can feel very different. For the people doing the work, the ones building the plane while it's flying, growth often brings chaos, confusion and exhaustion.
Firms often talk about scale as if it's purely a numbers game. Double the revenue, double the team, double the opportunity. What's rarely discussed is the cognitive and emotional weight that kind of pace puts on employees. Behind every milestone are people trying to keep up, working through ambiguity, managing constant change and still somehow expected to perform at their best.
When Growth Moves Faster Than Structure
In a fast-growing company, roles shift overnight. Systems don't catch up. One day you're leading a team of five, the next you're managing twenty with no training, no processes and no time to pause. Everyone is moving fast but few know where things are going. And that takes a toll.
You end up with people making decisions without clarity, bouncing between meetings and firefighting instead of building. It's not just the hours that exhaust them. It's the mental load. Every day becomes a series of judgment calls in grey areas.
I've seen leaders try to fix this by encouraging people to embrace the mess or figure it out later. That works until it doesn't. Eventually, the lack of structure turns into friction. Teams burn out. Trust erodes. And the thing that was meant to accelerate progress starts slowing everything down.
If you're leading through this, your job isn't to pretend the uncertainty isn't there. It's to put some scaffolding around it. That might mean setting up a temporary governance layer, giving teams clear swim lanes or simply saying what decisions are still up in the air. Clarity doesn't need to be perfect. It just needs to be good enough to anchor people.
The Mental Cost of Constant Change
One thing you notice in high-growth companies is how often the priorities shift. This quarter it's user growth, next quarter it's margin. Teams get halfway through a project only to be told the focus has moved. And the cycle repeats.
At first, people roll with it. They're flexible, they hustle. But over time the message becomes nothing sticks. That's when disengagement creeps in. Why invest energy if the target will move again next week?
This isn't just frustrating. It's psychologically draining. People crave some predictability. They want to know their work has a shelf life longer than a sprint cycle. If that's missing, you'll start seeing signs like lower initiative, vague responses in meetings, an uptick in sick days and good people quietly opting out.
What helps here is being deliberate about what's stable and what's fluid. Not everything has to be locked down but some things do. Your values, your long-term goals and your decision principles. Say those things often. And when something changes, don't just announce the new plan. Explain what you're letting go of. People can handle change but not when it comes without context.
Culture Gets Tested as You Scale
When a company is small, culture is something you feel. It lives in how people talk, how decisions get made and how you show up for one another. But when headcount doubles in six months, that shared rhythm disappears unless you work hard to protect it.
The early team starts feeling stretched, carrying legacy knowledge no one has time to document. New joiners get dropped into the middle of a fast-moving train with little onboarding. Misunderstandings rise. Tensions too. And the camaraderie that once held everything together starts to fray.
This is when culture stops being a vibe and starts becoming a job. If you're a founder or senior leader, you now have to teach it. Not through posters or all-hands slogans but through lived practice. How you run meetings, how you reward people and how you handle feedback.
The simplest thing you can do is talk to your people. Not just in performance reviews or town halls but in real conversations. Ask what's unclear. Ask what's changed. And listen. You'll learn more in a 20-minute conversation with a frontline employee than from any metrics dashboard.
The Quiet Pressure to Keep Up
In fast-growing companies, the tempo creates its own hierarchy. Those who move quickest, stay latest or say yes to everything get noticed. Everyone else wonders if they're doing enough.
It happens quietly. Someone skips their holiday. Another answers messages at midnight. Before long it becomes the norm. Not because anyone said so but because no one said otherwise.
That's how overwork becomes culture. And once it sets in, it's hard to roll back. The message becomes if you slow down, you get left behind.
Leaders set the pace here, whether they mean to or not. If you reply to emails at 3am, your team sees it. If you praise someone for pulling an all-nighter but ignore the one who delivers consistently over time, that sends a message too.
So be mindful of the signals you give. Celebrate consistency, not just heroics. Make it safe for people to say no when bandwidth is low. And take your own time off then tell people you did. Your team will follow what you model more than what you mandate.
What You Can Do Right Now
If you're leading in a company that's scaling quickly, start by checking how your team is really doing. Not in a survey. In a conversation. Ask them what's unclear. What's become harder. What would make their work easier tomorrow.
Then look at where people are stretched too thin. Are managers managing or just executing? Are systems lagging behind team growth? Are people making decisions without enough guidance? Those are the pressure points.
Next, find one or two simple things you can lock down. A cadence. A shared tool. A weekly ritual. Something that gives people a bit of rhythm in the noise.
And finally, remind yourself growth is exciting but it isn't free. There's a cost. That cost often shows up first in the minds and bodies of your people. Recognising that is not a weakness. It is leadership.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Associated Press
28 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Wimbledon 2025: Coco Gauff is just 21 but already thinking about what to do after tennis
LONDON (AP) — To be clear, Coco Gauff didn't bring up the word 'star' during a recent interview with The Associated Press; the reporter did. So as Gauff began to answer a question about balancing her life as a professional athlete with her off-court interests, she caught herself repeating that term. 'I definitely didn't know how it would look like,' she began with a smile, 'before I got to be, I guess, a star — feels weird to call myself that — but I definitely did want to expand outside of tennis. Always. Since I was young.' She still is young, by just about any measure, and she is a really good tennis player — Gauff owns the Grand Slam titles and No. 2 ranking to prove it as she heads into Wimbledon, which begins Monday — but the 21-year-old American is also more than that. Someone unafraid to express her opinions about societal issues. Someone who connects with fans via social media. Someone who is the highest-paid female athlete in any sport, topping $30 million last year, according to with less than a third of that from prize money and most via deals with companies such as UPS, New Balance, Rolex and Barilla. Someone who recently launched her own management firm. And someone who wants to succeed in the business world long after she no longer swings a racket on tour. 'It's definitely something that I want to start to step up for post-career. Kind of start building that process, which is why I wanted to do it early. Because I didn't want to feel like I was playing catch-up at the end of my career,' said Gauff, who will face Dayana Yastremska in the first round at the All England Club on Tuesday. 'On the business side of things, it doesn't come as natural as tennis feels. I'm still learning, and I have a lot to learn about,' Gauff said. 'I've debated different things and what paths I wanted to take when it came to just stimulating my brain outside of the court, because I always knew that once I finished high school that I needed to put my brain into something else.' In a campaign announced this week by UPS, which first partnered with Gauff in 2023 before she won that year's U.S. Open, she connects with business coach Emma Grede — known for working with Kim Kardashian on Skims, and with Khloe Kardashian on Good American — to offer mentoring to three small-business owners. 'Coco plays a key role in helping us connect with those younger Gen-Z business owners — emerging or younger entrepreneurs,' Betsy Wilson, VP of digital marketing and brand activation at UPS, said in a phone interview. 'Obviously, she's very relevant in social media and in culture, and working with Coco helps us really connect with that younger group.' While Grede helped the entrepreneurs, Gauff also got the opportunity to pick up tips. 'It's really cool to learn from someone like her,' Gauff said. 'Whenever I feel like I'm ready to make that leap, I can definitely reach out to her for advice and things like that. ... This will help me right now and definitely in the long term.' ___ Howard Fendrich has been the AP's tennis writer since 2002. Find his stories here: More AP tennis:
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
St. Joseph County home listings asked for more money in May - see the current median price here
The median home in St. Joseph County listed for $265,900 in May, up 9% from the previous month's $243,950, an analysis of data from shows. Compared to May 2024, the median home list price decreased 2.9% from $289,000. The statistics in this article only pertain to houses listed for sale in St. Joseph County, not houses that were sold. Information on your local housing market, along with other useful community data, is available at St. Joseph County's median home was 1,777 square feet, listed at $148 per square foot. The price per square foot of homes for sale is mostly unchanged from May 2024. Listings in St. Joseph County moved steadily, at a median 43 days listed compared to the May national median of 51 days on the market. In the previous month, homes had a median of 43 days on the market. Around 76 homes were newly listed on the market in May, an 8.6% increase from 70 new listings in May 2024. The median home prices issued by may exclude many, or even most, of a market's homes. The price and volume represent only single-family homes, condominiums or townhomes. They include existing homes, but exclude most new construction as well as pending and contingent sales. In Michigan, median home prices were $299,900, a slight increase from April. The median Michigan home listed for sale had 1,618 square feet, with a price of $184 per square foot. Throughout the United States, the median home price was $440,000, a slight increase from the month prior. The median American home for sale was listed at 1,840 square feet, with a price of $234 per square foot. The median home list price used in this report represents the midway point of all the houses or units listed over the given period of time. Experts say the median offers a more accurate view of what's happening in a market than the average list price, which would mean taking the sum of all listing prices then dividing by the number of homes sold. The average can be skewed by one particularly low or high price. The USA TODAY Network is publishing localized versions of this story on its news sites across the country, generated with data from Please leave any feedback or corrections for this story here. This story was written by Ozge Terzioglu. Our News Automation and AI team would like to hear from you. Take this survey and share your thoughts with us. This article originally appeared on Sturgis Journal: St. Joseph County home listings asked for more money in May - see the current median price here


Forbes
36 minutes ago
- Forbes
Will The ‘Beautiful' Bill Increase The Deficit?
NEW YORK - FEBRUARY 19: The National Debt Clock is seen February 19, 2004 in New York City. ... More According to a Treasury Department report, the U.S. governments national debt, the accumulation of past budget shortfalls, reached a total of more than $7 trillion for the first time. (Photo by) The performative exchange of military strikes between Iran and the US means that a nuclear tipped hot war in the Middle East is off the cards for the moment, though the bad news is that a far greater crisis awaits. In the past five or so weeks prominent financiers – Ray Dalio, Jamie Dimon and even Elon Musk – have warned about the burgeoning fiscal deficit and the mountain of debt that the US (and other countries) has accumulated. A very decent blog post by Indermit Gill, the chief economist at the World Bank, outlines the viewpoint. Next week, there is a good chance that the Senate passes President Trump's budget, which according to the independent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) will swell the deficit by close to USD 3trn and push debt to GDP towards an unprecedented 125% in the next ten years Additionally, rumours that the next Federal Reserve chair will be picked soon by President Trump (Powell leaves in May 2026) has upset the dollar, making life even more difficult for foreign holders of US debt. What is interesting is not how gargantuan the world's debt load has become, but how few people care. Politics in the West has changed so much that it has neutered what used to be a political class who in a very Catholic way, pronounced themselves to be fiscally responsible. In the US, it used to be the case that a good number of Senators were what was called 'fiscal hawks', or had an aversion to large budget deficits, and an even greater aversion to resolving them through higher taxes (the US has only produced budget surplus twice – under Lyndon Johnson and then Bill Clinton – and in both cases taxes were raised). Paul Krugman has referred to deficit hawks as 'deficit scolds', because the spend more time warning about the dangers of the deficit than fixing it. Ronald Reagan, and the policy makers who surrounded him – namely James Baker, Nicholas Brady and Don Reagan, were fiscally conservative by reputation but had the luxury of being able to grow the US economy through tax cuts and de-regulation. At the time (early 1980's onwards) some Republicans had a 'starve the beast' mindset, which is to say that they favoured lowering taxes so that the government would have less revenue to spend, but there is little evidence that this worked as a strategy (partly because many of the initial Reagan tax cuts were aimed at the rich). In the post Reagan phase, deficit reduction as a virtue came into its own in the Robert Rubin era (at the Treasury), and many of his former colleagues and acolytes continued this during the early years of the Obama presidency (a relevant private body is the Hamilton Project, where Rubin was a founder). One of the notable initiatives of the Obama White House was the creation of the US National Committee on National Fiscal Responsibility and Reform or the Simpson-Bowles Commission as it became known, a bi-partisan body that aimed to reduce the fiscal deficit and debt. Its most noteworthy aspect, in my memory, was the degree of civility and collaboration between representatives of the Democrats and Republicans. Such a body could not exist today. Indeed, the radicalisation of parts of both parties, in the context of quantitative easing (which has dulled the impact of rising debt and deficits) has broken the link between fiscal responsibility and electability. For example, the first crack in the Republican edifice was the advent of the Tea Party Movement, one of whose tenets was tough fiscal responsibility, as inspired by a 'Chicago Tea Party' rant from CNBC commentator Rick Santelli in 2009. Many of the Tea Party oriented voters and Republican politicians then gravitated to the Trump corner in 2016, the price of which was a surrender of their fiscal sacred cows. Today there is only a handful of fiscally conservative Republican Senators (the Club for Growth publishes an annual scorecard of how fiscally rigorous it thinks members of the House and Senate are). The majority of Republican Senators appear happy to give the nod to a policy that edges the US closer to the financial precipice. Indeed, not only will the Trump budget favour wealthy households but it will increase the number of financially precarious households, and damage healthcare and education provision. The other interesting observation I draw is that the relationship between debt and politics has now reached a turning point, and from here debt will condition politics. I see this happening in at least three ways. The first is that in the context of 'zero fiscal space' the constraints imposed by high levels of debt and deficits, will drive new splits within parties, for example between those who are keen to spend more on defence, versus those who wish to preserve social welfare safety nets. The revolt by a large number of Labour MPs against benefit cuts imposed by Keir Starmer is an example. In the future, this cleavage may inspire new political parties. To echo a recent note (The Power Algorithm) new 'tech bro' parties could materialise that prefer using robots to do the work of immigrants and that technology should be deployed for social control. The second, related scenario is that in the absence of money to spend, the traditional 'pork barrel' cycle of politics disintegrates, and instead politicians tilt the broad political debate to non-fiscal issues – identity, foreign policy, and immigration. A third element in the hypothesis is that voters observe mainstream politicians to be helpless and useless in the face of very high fiscal constraints, and they become largely apathetic about politics and in some cases vote for extreme candidates, such as 'chainsaw economists' as in the case of Argentina. In this way, and perhaps exceptionally in history, the coming debt crisis (if the World Bank's economist is correct) will be intertwined with the current crisis of politics.