We Not Me

Steve McLeod has spent years building Feature Upvote, a small bootstrapped software company, and along the way became fixated on a question most product literature ignores: how do founders with no product manager, no big budget and no army of researchers actually decide what to build next? He set out to write a book about prioritization frameworks — and discovered almost nobody uses one. This episode is the story of what he found instead, drawn from interviews with ten small, self-funded software companies (including Squadify's own Dan Hammond and Pia Lee) about how they really make product calls under pressure.The conversation lands on the "Hippo" — Highest Paid Person's Opinion — and the reassuring discovery that it's rarer than founders fear: the companies that lasted were the ones who brought their whole team into the decision, even when the founder ultimately had to call it. Steve walks through the recurring traps (chasing every early customer request until the product buckles under its own clutter), the founders who held their nerve on vision anyway, and the practical habit — ruthlessly deleting your backlog — that keeps decision-making sane as you scale.Key Themes & TakeawaysMost software is built by small, bootstrapped teams, yet almost all published advice on feature prioritization assumes you have VC funding and a dedicated product management function.In companies under roughly 30 people, a dedicated product manager rarely exists — the founder is the de facto product manager whether or not they were ever trained for the role.The feared "Hippo" (highest paid person's opinion) showed up far less than expected: the founders who survived were the ones who genuinely brought their team into the decision before calling it.Early customer flattery is dangerous — saying yes to every request in the early days can quietly bury a product in clutter, technical debt and UX debt until the simplicity customers loved disappears.Some founders held firm to a narrow product vision under customer pressure and it paid off (Balsamiq's low-fidelity-only stance); others drifted toward enterprise features and had to consciously claw back to their original audience.Saying no needs a companion habit: regularly deleting (or archiving) your backlog, since an ever-growing "maybe later" list becomes its own source of stress and false hopeCo-founder decision-making works best with clear domain ownership and transparency about disagreement — naming the tension openly beats either person quietly overriding the other.Three Reasons to ListenListen if you're a founder secretly doing product management without ever having the job title for it — Steve makes the case that this isn't a phase to survive, it's exactly where you're supposed to be right now.Listen if your backlog has quietly become a graveyard of ideas you'll never build — there's a blunt, freeing argument here for deleting almost all of it.Listen if you and a co-founder (or any two people sharing decisions) keep circling the same disagreement — Dan and Pia's own way of working through this at Squadify gets picked apart in detail, including what they actually do when they don't agree.Notable Quotes"Hippo stands for the highest paid person's opinion." — Steve McLeod"Delete almost all of your backlog on an ongoing basis. It's good for you. It's good for your team." — Steve McLeod"Until your product is a lot bigger, you are the product manager, so embrace that." — Steve McLeodSteve McLeod's BioSteve McLeod is the co-author of "Kill the HiPPO: How small, bootstrapped software companies decide what feature to build next". The book is a collection of interviews with founders of stable, mature, profitable software companies, telling real stories about how founders make hard product decisions.Steve is a three-time bootstrapped founder and currently CEO of Feature Upvote, a SaaS platform for managing customer feedback.After experiencing near burnout in his first company, Steve intentionally keeps his running of Feature Upvote low-stress, aiming for modest, manageable growth, so that he can keep mentally healthy while running it.Originally from New Zealand, Steve has worked in Australia, Germany, the UK, Spain, and more briefly, in Switzerland and France. He now lives in Barcelona, Spain.LinksKill the HippoFeature Upvote

There's a scientific basis for understanding optimal team size, including research on connection complexity, social loafing, and performance data that challenges common assumptions about how many people should work together effectively.In this Q&A episode, Dan and Pia dive into the science and the data, to discover the optimum team size.Episode highlights[00:01:27] Is it OK to have a big team?[00:04:15] The Ringelmann effect[00:07:22] What's the optimum team size?[00:08:18] When is a team a group?[00:10:20] What the Squadify data showsLinksRingelmann effectTrack and improve your team performance with SquadifyLeave us a voice note

Successful team performance requires slowing down to achieve alignment before rushing into action. Spending more time upfront ensuring everyone truly understands the problem statement, decision-making roles, and priorities will save significant time, energy, and relationship breakdowns later.Without this foundational alignment, teams waste enormous amounts of time in ineffective meetings, experience constant breakdowns in execution, and carry baggage from unresolved issues that poisons future decisions. The key is to move with discipline and sophistication rather than mere speed, investing in both the technical frameworks and the relational intelligence needed to bring out the best thinking from diverse perspectives.Susan Asiyanbi is the founder and CEO of the Olori Network, an executive leadership practice that works with CEOs, executive teams, and boards, specialising in studying what the strongest executive teams and boards do differently.Three reasons to listenIdentify the hidden costs of misalignment in your team, from wasted meeting time to breakdowns in relationships that drain energy both at work and at homeApply a disciplined approach to decision-making that balances speed with rigour through five key strandsReclaim control of your calendar by conducting a time audit that reveals the gap between what you say matters and where you actually spend your energyEpisode highlights[00:09:18] Alignment, themes, and relationships[00:11:06] How to get alignment[00:12:32] What happens when alignment isn't found[00:15:48] Asking the right questions[00:17:32] Decision-making is compromised[00:18:40] The five key components of a decision-making framework[00:26:17] How to move more slowly[00:28:41] How will AI affect decision-making?[00:31:44] What are you prioritising for?[00:37:23] What to try this[00:39:57] Susan's media recommendation[00:40:43] Takeaways from Pia and DanLinksConnect with Susan via LinkedInTeam #1, by Patrick LencioniAI-Generated “Workslop” Is Destroying ProductivityHow to turn a group of strangers into a team – Susan’s media recommendationTrack and improve your team performance with SquadifyLeave us a voice note

Restaurant franchises can be powerful environments for leadership development, especially for young people. When managed with intentionality, these seemingly entry-level jobs can provide significant opportunities for personal growth, skill development, and career advancement.Melissa Nuttall, along with her partner, is the franchisee of a quick service restaurant in New Zealand. In this conversation with Pia and Dan, she lays out how good customer service and continuous training create positive work cycles that benefit both employees and customers.Three reasons to listenAchieve broader business goals while reducing cognitive load on staffDevelop young team members into capable leaders through progressive responsibilityCreate safe spaces for growth regardless of employees’ long-term career plansEpisode highlights[00:08:38] Helping the next generation of leaders[00:14:21] Turning a culture around[00:18:23] Creating a stable launchpad for new careers[00:24:38] Leading with kindness and humility[00:27:58] Be mindful of your leadership shadow[00:29:20] Mel's media recommendation[00:30:11] Takeaways from Pia and DanLinksConnect with Melissa via LinkedInTrack and improve your team performance with SquadifyLeave us a voice note

Humans are crucial to AI adoption. While AI technology continues to advance, its effective implementation in business depends on people working with it rather than being replaced by it.Inclusive AI means finding the right balance between technological advancement and human insight, rather than seeing AI as a simple push-button solution to complex knowledge work.Susi O’Neill is a consultant, author, and speaker on frontier technology. She helps organisations implement AI effectively, analyses AI trends, and distills insights in her newsletter.Three reasons to listenTo move past the hype and see how humans will continue to be essential in an AI-enhanced workplaceTo start implementing an effective approach to AI adoption in your organisationTo develop a more balanced perspective on technological change than the one propagated by Silicon ValleyEpisode highlights[00:05:19] The nebulous nature of AI[00:11:17] Change is the constant[00:16:06] The falacy of the competetive advantage[00:18:16] Inclusive AI[00:26:18] How do we use AI responsibly?[00:29:05] Squadify's AI governance[00:33:06] Take your first step into AI[00:37:41] Suzi's media recommendations[00:40:32] Takeaways from Dan and PiaLinksTrack and improve your team performance with SquadifyLeave us a voice noteConnect with Suzi via LinkedInRethinking the Hype Cycle – Suzi’s newsletterWomen Leaders in Tech Outpace Men Counterparts in Generative AI AdoptionChannel 4 Corporate AI PrinciplesSupremacy, by Parmy OlsonThreads (1984)Offal

Too many "best places to work" lists focus on performative, low-cost perks like free breakfasts and dog-friendly offices. But they ignore fundamental issues like fair pay, reasonable working hours, and meaningful parental leave.Companies often use marketing language to make minimal benefits sound impressive, like claiming "enhanced parental leave" when they're barely exceeding the statutory minimum. This creates a disconnect between how organisations present themselves and the actual employee experience.Amy Wilson is a commercial consultant advisor, with a background in marketing, who helps companies grow and founders focus on what matters. She mentors young and underrepresented founders, and she joins Dan and Pia to discuss her LinkedIn post critiquing The Times’ Best “Places to Work" list.Three reasons to listenTo be mindful of performative workplace benefits that don't actually improve employee experienceTo identify misleading claims about "enhanced" benefits that barely exceed statutory minimumsTo understand how organisational silos and conflicting KPIs lead to workplace policies that prioritise appearance over substanceEpisode highlights[00:06:48] What constitutes a good place to work?[00:10:55] Amy's response to the New York Times Best Business to Work article[00:17:09] Allies in name only[00:22:14] Why aren't companies doing the right thing?[00:25:27] Are things getting worse?[00:26:39] What can we do about it?[00:33:20] Amy's media recommendation[00:36:08] Takeaways from Dan and PiaLinksConnect with Amy via LinkedInAmy’s response to the Sunday Times Besst Places to Work articleHalt and Catch Fire – Amy’s TV recommendationBuilding a thriving culture from the outside in – Episode 58, with Tom Wedge and Marcus SwalwellTrack and improve your team performance with SquadifyLeave us a voice note

The “traditional” understanding of hybrid working is being challenged as organisations try to implement more structured approaches, creating friction with employees who developed their own interpretations of what hybrid working means during the pandemic.Matthew Davis is an associate professor at the University of Leeds. He specialises in organisational and business psychology, with extensive research experience in workplace environments. He researches and consults on hybrid work patterns, and studies how companies are adapting their workspaces and practices.Three reasons to listenTo understand different generational perspectives on hybrid work, from senior leaders pushing for office returns to younger workers concerned about isolation and development opportunitiesTo navigate the evolving definition of hybrid work and how it varies across organisationsTo better grasp how employee choice and control over both where and when to work has become central to how workers define hybrid arrangementsEpisode highlights[00:11:54] What is"hybrid working"?[00:17:14] Is hybrid always a positive?[00:23:39] What do workers want?[00:24:31] Hybrid's benefits for inclusion[00:27:28] What hybrid is missing[00:30:57] Caveats on returning to the office[00:37:23] Matthew's guiding principle[00:40:50] Matthew's media recommendation[00:42:10] Takeaways from Dan and PiaLinksConnect with Matthew via LinkedInThe Prophet and the Idiot, by Jonas JonassonTrack and improve your team performance with SquadifyLeave us a voice note