A VC, a Headhunter, and a Trainer Walk into a Bar

What happens when your team stops telling you what you need to hear?

Building a hard tech company takes conviction, but that same conviction can make it difficult for founders to hear opposing perspectives. When people hesitate to challenge decisions, important problems go unaddressed, and leaders risk losing access to the information they need most.

In this episode of VHTB, Justus Kilian of Space Capital, Brian Mejeur of AdAstra, and Matt Gjertsen of BUILT discuss how to create a culture where disagreement is productive, feedback is welcomed, and teams feel comfortable challenging ideas without making conflict personal.

We talk about why truth-seeking matters in leadership, how communication styles can unintentionally discourage people from speaking up, and why both founders and executive teams share responsibility for healthy disagreement. We also cover practical ways to build this skill, from understanding how colleagues prefer to communicate to using pre-mortems that help teams confront difficult questions before problems escalate.

Because productive conflict isn't about winning arguments. It's about creating an environment where different perspectives help everyone make better decisions.

[00:00] Introducing productive conflict in hard tech teams

[01:54] Why founder conviction can make disagreement difficult

[03:11] Creating space for honest feedback and pushback

[05:28] Why truth-seeking matters in startup leadership

[06:43] Using curiosity to uncover different perspectives

[09:34] The challenges of escalating disagreements

[13:49] How leaders respond to bad news shapes transparency

[14:36] Why productive conflict is a muscle you need to build

[16:26] Why conflict can be a gift to your organization

[17:39] Building a culture where disagreement leads to growth

• Conviction shouldn't come at the expense of truth. Founders need people who can challenge assumptions and bring difficult information forward, even when it contradicts their thinking.
• Productive conflict is a shared responsibility. Leaders need to consider how their communication affects others, while executive teams must also be willing to push back.
• Curiosity makes disagreement more useful. Truth isn't always obvious, and approaching different perspectives with curiosity can uncover information that might otherwise be missed.
• Hierarchy changes how teams disagree. As organizations grow, leaders need clearer ways to raise concerns, escalate issues, and challenge decisions without creating unnecessary friction.
• Conflict is a skill that can be practiced. Low-stakes disagreements and pre-mortem exercises help teams become more comfortable giving and receiving difficult feedback.
• Disagreement can reveal blind spots. Instead of treating conflict as a threat, teams can view it as an opportunity to identify problems and improve decisions.

How does your team handle disagreement? Are people comfortable challenging decisions and bringing difficult feedback forward?

Share your thoughts in the comments, and let us know what has helped your team build a culture of productive conflict.

Subscribe to VHTB for more conversations on the talent, culture, and capital shaping the future of hard tech.

• Space Capital
• BUILT
• AdAstra Talent Advisors

What makes someone a great hire at an early-stage hard tech startup?

When you're building your first team, it's easy to look for the best engineer, the deepest technical expert, or the person with the strongest pedigree. But the person who's perfect for a 100-person company may not be the person you need when you're building your first 10.

In this episode of VHTB, Matt Gjertsen (Built), Justus Kilian (Space Capital), and Brian Mejeur (AdAstra Talent Advisors) get into what makes early-stage hires different and why the definition of great talent has to change as a company grows.

How much should founders value specialization versus adaptability? We talk about why early hires need to work across a broad set of problems, how a single person can raise the bar for everyone who comes after them, and why some of your first employees should be talent magnets who make other exceptional people want to join.

We also get into why assembling a team of individual superstars doesn't always produce the strongest team. Existing trust, communication, and experience working together can help early teams move faster, especially when the company inevitably has to change direction.

And underneath all of this is one of the most important qualities an early-stage hire can have: the ability to learn quickly. When you're operating in white space, today's problem may not be tomorrow's problem, which means the people you hire need to be able to adapt just as quickly as the company does.

[00:00] What makes a great early-stage hire different from a great employee?

[02:45] Why your earliest hires need to have an outsized impact

[05:00] Why early-stage startups need breadth, not just specialization

[07:00] How founders should think about their first 10 hires

[09:00] How existing trust and team chemistry can help startups move faster

[10:30] Why superstar teams can create more friction

[11:00] Why adaptability matters when an early-stage startup has to pivot

[12:00] The most important ability Justus looks for in early-stage hires

[13:00] Why experience gives early employees a useful mental model

[15:00] What the interview process can reveal beyond technical ability

[17:00] Why early-stage hiring is more about momentum than pedigree

• Early-stage hires have an outsized influence because each person represents a much larger percentage of the company.
• Your first employees aren't just filling roles. They're establishing the standard for skill, execution, culture, and the people who join after them.
• A strong early hire can be a talent magnet who attracts other exceptional people through their network, reputation, and credibility.
• Early-stage companies often need people with broad, adaptable skill sets because roles and priorities can change quickly.
• Success for an early hire can mean building a function and eventually handing it to someone more specialized as the company grows.
• A collection of individual superstars doesn't automatically create a high-performing team. Existing trust and shared working experience can help teams reach productive velocity faster.
• Early-stage startups are more likely to pivot, making adaptability especially important when there aren't enough people to reorganize around every new problem.
• The rate of learning can be more valuable than mastery of one narrow domain when employees are constantly working in unfamiliar territory.
• Experience gives early hires mental models for communication, escalation, decision-making, and solving problems without established processes.
• As a company matures, hiring criteria can shift toward deeper specialization because the organization has more people, structure, and clarity around the problems it needs to solve.

• Space Capital
• BUILT
• AdAstra Talent Advisors

The person who starts a company isn't necessarily the person that company will need five years later. So can founders actually change?

Early on, a founder might be building the product themselves, solving technical problems, and proving that something works. But as the company grows, the job changes. Now it's about bringing in the right people, finding resources, telling the story, setting the vision, and leading an organization through the ups and downs.

In this episode of VHTB, Matt Gjertsen (Built), Justus Kilian (Space Capital), and Seyka Mejeur (AdAstra Talent Advisors) get into what it actually takes for founders to evolve as the demands of their companies change.

How do you hold onto the conviction that got you this far while still being willing to hear that you might be wrong? We talk about why curiosity and self-awareness matter, what investors and candidates can look for when deciding whether a founder is capable of evolving, and why "strong opinions loosely held" might be one of the better ways to think about founder leadership.

But growth also means letting go. Sometimes you're handing off something you're great at to someone who might not initially do it as well as you. Sometimes you're learning an entirely new set of skills because the company no longer needs the version of you that built its first stage. That "death of a past self" can be one of the hardest parts of becoming the leader your company needs next.

We also get into something that's easy to miss from the outside: being at the top can be lonely. Founders carry problems they can't always bring back to their teams, which makes trusted investors, other founders, spouses, and executive coaches important places to think, process, and be human without having to hold the strong face all the time.

[00:00] What does it take for a hard tech founder to change?

[02:08] Why the CEO role requires founders to continually evolve

[04:18] How do you balance founder conviction with a willingness to change?

[07:38] The self-awareness founders need as their companies grow

[10:46] How do you know when you're being too hardheaded?

[12:22] How candidates can tell if a founder is willing to change

[13:27] The role executive coaches can play beyond business strategy

[14:27] Why being at the top can be a lonely role

[16:07] Why founders have to change if they want their companies to grow

• The CEO role changes as a company grows, and founders have to evolve with it.
• Conviction matters, but the best founders can take in new information without immediately discounting it.
• Founder change is most effective when it comes from within rather than being imposed from the outside.
• Curiosity and self-awareness are strong signals that someone is capable of continuing to grow.
• Every new stage of a company can require founders to let go of skills, responsibilities, and even parts of the identity that made them successful before.
• "Strong opinions loosely held" creates room for conviction and adaptability to exist at the same time.
• Candidates can learn a lot about a founder by asking when they last changed their mind because of new information.
• Founders need trusted people they can be open with because there are challenges at the top that can't always be shared with the broader team.
• If you want the company to grow, the person leading it has to be willing to grow too.

Subscribe to VHTB for more conversations on the talent, culture, and capital forces shaping the hard tech startup ecosystem.

Space Capital: https://www.spacecapital.com/

BUILT: https://builtleaders.com/

AdAstra Talent Advisors: https://adastra.us/

What does career growth actually look like in hard tech when becoming a manager isn't the only option?

A lot of people reach a point in their career where they've accomplished something big and start asking what's next. Do you become a people manager? Stay an individual contributor and become even better at your craft? Move into venture capital? Or is there another way to think about career growth entirely?

In this episode of VHTB, Seyka Mejeur (AdAstra Talent Advisors), Matt Gjertsen (Built), and Justus Kilian (Space Capital) get into the different paths available to people building careers in hard tech and why moving into management shouldn't automatically be considered the next step.

We talk about the real trade-offs between staying technical and becoming a people leader. Managing people means developing an entirely different set of skills: communication, delegation, decision-making, dealing with people's problems, and ultimately helping other people solve problems instead of always being the person with the answer.

But those aren't the only two paths. What if you treated your career like a portfolio and thought carefully about the three to five bets you might get to make? We get into how engineers and operators can move into venture capital, why the companies you choose early in your career matter, and how time on the venture side can make you a stronger operator if you decide to go back.

And underneath all of these paths is something much simpler: whose problems are you solving? Whether you're interviewing, joining a team, leading one, starting a company, or investing in one, being proactive about finding and solving important problems may be one of the most valuable career skills you can develop.

[00:00] What are the different ways to grow a career in hard tech?

[03:32] Why your best individual contributor may not be your best manager

[05:30] How should companies create career growth without forcing people into management?

[08:14] Why a manager's job is to help other people solve problems

[10:03] What actually makes someone ready to become a leader?

[13:05] Can engineers build a career in venture capital?

[15:46] Why you should think about your career as a portfolio

[17:20] How venture capital can make you a better operator

[19:59] The career skill traditional education doesn't teach you

• Becoming a manager isn't the only way to grow your career in hard tech.
• Individual contributors and people managers require different skills, and neither path should automatically be treated as the better one.
• Great technical performance doesn't necessarily mean someone will be a great people leader.
• Moving into management means shifting from solving problems yourself to helping other people solve problems.
• Engineers and operators can also consider venture capital as another path for applying their technical experience and network.
• Your career can be viewed as a portfolio of a handful of important bets, making the companies you choose to join a meaningful part of your long-term trajectory.
• Moving between operating roles and venture capital can build different skills and perspectives without requiring either one to become a permanent career.
• Career growth starts with proactively understanding other people's problems and figuring out where you can create the most value.
• One of the hardest transitions from school to work is learning to identify problems yourself instead of waiting for someone to tell you what to solve.

Subscribe to VHTB for more conversations on the talent, culture, and capital forces shaping the hard tech startup ecosystem.

Space Capital: https://www.spacecapital.com/

BUILT: https://builtleaders.com/

AdAstra Talent Advisors: https://adastra.us/

America wants to re-industrialize. But where are all the people needed to actually build everything going to come from?

For decades, college and university were pushed as the first-class path while trade schools and skilled manufacturing careers weren't looked at in the same light. Now some of the people with the deepest machining and manufacturing expertise are getting closer to retirement, while demand for those skills is growing.

The challenge isn't simply finding more people. It's figuring out how to transfer decades of knowledge, make manufacturing careers more accessible to a new generation, and use automation to increase what each skilled person can accomplish.

In this episode, we talk about what the manufacturing talent shortage actually looks like, why mom-and-pop machine shops hold so much valuable knowledge, and how companies are approaching the problem through automation, acquisitions, apprenticeships, and bringing critical skills in-house.

We also get into whether manufacturing expertise itself could become one of the most defensible advantages a hard tech company can build.

[00:00] Where will America's hard tech talent come from?

[01:27] Why the manufacturing talent shortage is so difficult to solve

[02:39] How college became the first-class path over skilled trades

[03:19] Why highly skilled machinists are becoming harder to find

[04:36] How much manufacturing knowledge has already disappeared?

[05:36] The aging workforce problem inside legacy manufacturers

[06:03] Can automation help close the manufacturing talent gap?

[07:40] Are startups actually struggling to fill these roles yet?

[10:20] Bringing mom-and-pop manufacturing into the modern era

[11:13] How do we transfer expertise before skilled workers retire?

[12:16] Why companies may need to build their own talent

[13:45] Could manufacturing expertise become a competitive moat?

[14:18] Why the manufacturing talent cliff may still be ahead

• The manufacturing talent shortage isn't just about headcount. Some of the hardest skills to replace take years of hands-on experience to develop.
• For decades, college was pushed more heavily than trade schools, leaving many people unaware of highly skilled manufacturing career paths.
• As experienced machinists and other skilled workers retire, transferring what they know to the next generation becomes increasingly important.
• Automation doesn't necessarily eliminate the need for manufacturing workers. It can lower the barrier to entry and increase the productivity of the people already doing the work.
• Small mom-and-pop shops hold a significant amount of manufacturing expertise, creating opportunities to modernize, aggregate, and scale those capabilities.
• Companies can also build talent internally through apprenticeships and knowledge transfer, although getting experienced employees to make their expertise less dependent on themselves can be difficult.
• In hard tech, bringing difficult manufacturing capabilities in-house may be expensive, but that difficulty can also make them defensible.

Where do you think the next generation of skilled manufacturing talent will come from, and what needs to change to make those careers more attractive?

Subscribe to VHTB for more conversations about the talent, culture, and capital forces shaping the hard tech ecosystem.

• Space Capital
• BUILT
• AdAstra Talent Advisors

What happens when one company gets so far ahead that an entire ecosystem starts depending on it?

SpaceX has transformed access to orbit, but that success creates a new problem. If rideshare capacity becomes more limited and SpaceX increasingly prioritizes its own satellites, what happens to all of the companies that built their businesses around that access?

And this isn't just a launch problem.

TSMC shows what can happen when a dominant infrastructure provider chooses not to compete with its customers. Other technology platforms show the opposite: once you own the infrastructure, the temptation to move vertically and capture more of the value can be hard to resist.

In this episode, we talk about the risks of building around a single critical provider, why enormous technical moats are so difficult to challenge, and whether scarcity ultimately creates the pressure for new competitors and business models to emerge.

We also get into whether the market can solve these bottlenecks on its own, or whether some infrastructure becomes strategically important enough that policy eventually has to play a role.

Episode Highlights:

[00:00] What happens when one company controls access to a market?

[02:38] TSMC and the value of not competing with your customers

[03:51] What Apple and Amazon show about owning the platform

[05:43] SpaceX's unusual position in launch and satellite connectivity

[07:10] The tension between serving customers and maximizing shareholder value

[08:42] Can you actually build a competitor to a massive technical moat?

[11:20] Why access to space matters to the entire innovation ecosystem

[13:22] The risk of building a company around one launch provider

[15:14] Could launch scarcity create new markets and business models?

[16:08] The opportunity for intermediaries to solve the rideshare problem

[17:03] When does policy need to protect access to critical infrastructure?

[18:15] Can constraints ultimately push the market toward more innovation?

• When one company controls critical infrastructure, its business decisions can affect an entire ecosystem.
• TSMC shows how a dominant infrastructure provider can help an ecosystem flourish by choosing not to compete with its customers.
• SpaceX has a different tension because launching its own satellites may eventually be more valuable than providing capacity to other companies.
• Technical moats in hard tech can take decades and enormous amounts of capital to overcome, making it difficult for the market to respond quickly when a bottleneck emerges.
• Companies building around rideshare or future Starship capacity need to think carefully about how dependent their business model is on a single provider.
• Limited launch capacity could create opportunities for new launch providers, rideshare intermediaries, and other business models.
• If the market can't provide enough access to strategically important infrastructure, policy may eventually become part of the solution.

Where else in hard tech do you see a single company becoming a critical bottleneck for the rest of the ecosystem?

Subscribe to VHTB for more conversations about the talent, culture, and capital forces shaping hard tech.

Space Capital: https://www.spacecapital.com/

BUILT: https://builtleaders.com/

AdAstra Talent Advisors: https://adastra.us/

How do you know when discipline has gone too far?

There are good reasons to be careful with capital, hiring, and big decisions. But when the market is moving quickly, waiting too long can create its own problems. The people who want to move fast and make a difference can leave, opportunities can pass you by, and the money you raised can sit there instead of helping you get to the next milestone.

In this episode, we get into the other side of discipline: what happens when founders become too restrictive with resources or too hesitant to make decisions. Matt shares what his experience in the military taught him about risk-averse cultures, Justus breaks down why different types of capital come with different expectations around risk and growth, and Brian looks at where slowing down actually makes sense, especially when it comes to hiring.

A lot of it comes back to clarity. You don't need to know the answer yet, but you should know what you're trying to figure out. Once that's clear, it's much easier to decide how quickly to move, where to put your capital, and who you actually need on the team.

Episode Highlights

[00:00] When does too much discipline become a problem?

[01:54] What happens when leaders are too slow to make decisions?

[03:35] How different cultures think about risk

[04:37] Why some founders raise money and then hesitate to spend it

[06:13] The difference between discipline and unnecessary restriction

[10:13] The venture capital treadmill founders need to understand

[11:46] How do you know if you're spending too quickly or too slowly?

[13:07] Why clarity matters before you start hiring

[14:59] Why capital, leadership, and hiring all come back to clarity

[16:14] You don't need to know the answer, but you need to know the question

• Moving too slowly can be just as risky as moving too fast, especially when the market around you is changing quickly.
• An overly risk-averse culture can push innovative people toward places where they have more freedom to make a difference.
• Different types of capital come with different expectations. Venture capital is built around taking risk, moving quickly, and chasing growth.
• Discipline should help people make better decisions, not create unnecessary restrictions that prevent anything from getting done.
• Hiring is one place where slowing down can make sense. Getting clear on who you need and why you need them can save months of wasted time and resources.
• Clarity doesn't mean knowing the answer. It means knowing what you're trying to figure out.

Are you moving at the right speed for the problem you're trying to solve?

Subscribe to VHTB for more conversations about the talent, culture, and capital decisions shaping hard tech startups.

Space Capital: https://www.spacecapital.com/

BUILT: https://builtleaders.com/

AdAstra Talent Advisors: https://adastra.us/

There’s a lot of money flowing into hard tech right now. Rounds are getting bigger, companies are scaling faster, and founders have more resources to work with. But abundance creates a different set of problems.

When capital is scarce, constraints force creativity. When capital is abundant, the pressure shifts toward speed. You’re expected to hire faster, secure more physical space, build more hardware, and show that the resources you raised are translating into progress.

In this episode, we talk about what happens when a capital-rich market starts driving up salaries, equity packages, real estate, and expectations without necessarily creating the same increase in customer value.

We also get into the leadership challenge behind all of this. How fast can you grow without lowering the hiring bar, overwhelming your team with recruiting, or getting too far ahead of actual customer demand? And when the market eventually shifts back toward scarcity, will you have built the discipline and trust to keep moving?

[00:00] The state of hard tech right now

[01:48] Hard tech has a messaging problem

[04:25] Bigger rounds are creating pressure to scale faster

[05:48] The cyclical nature of venture capital

[07:01] Why scarcity can create better decisions

[07:37] How abundant capital is changing hardware hiring

[09:31] The leadership challenge of having more money

[10:30] Building a culture of disciplined spending

[12:28] Are founders prepared for the next downturn?

[14:28] How quickly should you actually grow your team?

[16:41] Bigger checks come with bigger expectations

[17:40] What investors want to see after you raise

[18:21] Building trust through execution

• Why abundant capital changes how hard tech companies operate
• How rapid fundraising affects hiring, salaries, and physical infrastructure
• The value of a scarcity mindset even when money is available
• Why some experienced founders are raising now and preparing for the next downturn
• The risk of building ahead of real customer demand
• How to scale hiring without overwhelming the existing team
• Why bigger rounds come with bigger expectations
• How clear plans and consistent execution build investor trust

Subscribe to VHTB for more conversations on the talent, culture, and capital forces shaping the hard tech startup ecosystem.

Space Capital: https://www.spacecapital.com/

BUILT: https://builtleaders.com/

AdAstra Talent Advisors: https://adastra.us/

Can burnout ever be a good thing? Or is it always a sign that something's broken?

When people talk about burnout, the conversation usually goes straight to long hours and impossible workloads. But is that actually what's causing it? Or is burnout sometimes a symptom of something much deeper?

In this episode of VHTB, Matt Gjertsen (Built), Justus Kilian (Space Capital), and Brian Mejeur (Ad Astra Talent Advisors) continue the conversation around startup culture by asking whether burnout is actually a leadership problem or simply part of building ambitious companies.

If a team starts burning out, is the workload really the issue? Or is it unclear expectations, a lack of progress, or feeling responsible for outcomes without having the authority to change them? We dig into why founders and leaders experience burnout differently than individual contributors, what burnout actually looks like inside fast-moving hard tech companies, and why intensity alone isn't necessarily the problem.

We also explore how leaders can recognize the difference between healthy pressure and unhealthy culture, why some people thrive in demanding environments while others don't, and what organizations can do to push the limits without losing the people they can't afford to lose.

Episode Highlights:

[00:00] Is burnout a leadership failure or an inevitable part of scaling a startup?

[01:48] Why founders often don't realize they're burning out until it's over

[05:49] Who's burning out and why that question matters more than you think

[09:11] Burnout isn't always caused by long hours

[10:52] The hidden causes of burnout most leaders overlook

[11:46] Why leader burnout spreads through an organization

[14:37] The difference between pain, suffering, and long-term burnout

[16:06] What should success actually look like for leaders?

[18:37] What Special Forces can teach startups about preventing burnout

Episode Takeaways:

• Burnout isn't always caused by workload. Lack of progress, poor communication, and unclear expectations can be just as damaging.
• Leaders should pay attention to who is burning out and why before assuming they have a workload problem.
• High-performing teams can handle intense periods of work when they believe the pressure has purpose and an end point.
• Burnout becomes dangerous when people stop believing things will improve.
• Leader burnout affects far more than one person because it shapes communication, decision-making, and team culture.
• Companies pushing ambitious missions should invest in strong onboarding, team cohesion, and giving people real ownership over their work.
• Sustainable performance comes from building systems that help people succeed, not simply asking them to work harder.

Subscribe to VHTB for more conversations on the talent, culture, and capital forces shaping the hard tech startup ecosystem.

Links & Resources:

Space Capital: https://www.spacecapital.com/

BUILT: https://builtleaders.com/

AdAstra Talent Advisors: https://adastra.us/

How do you build a rocket company where speed, safety, and trust all scale at once?

What does it actually take to build a fully reusable launch system in today’s space industry?

Not in theory. Not in a pitch deck. But in reality. where capital is massive, the physics are unforgiving, and execution is everything.

In this episode of VHTB, hosts Justus Kilian (Space Capital), Seyka Mejeur (Ad Astra Talent Advisors), and Matt Gjertsen (Built) sit down with Andy Lapsa, CEO and co-founder of Stoke Space, to unpack how one of the most ambitious new space companies is being built from the inside out.

Stoke is developing a fully reusable, medium-lift launch system designed to operate more like an aircraft than a traditional rocket. But this conversation goes far beyond hardware. It’s about how you design an organization that can actually execute at that level of complexity.

We dig into how Andy thinks about hiring elite talent, building trust at scale, and maintaining speed without breaking the system. He breaks down why great leadership is less about control and more about removing friction so exceptional people can operate at full capacity.

The conversation also explores how Stoke structures execution internally, how priorities get set week to week, how bottlenecks are surfaced, and how leaders stay close enough to the work without becoming the constraint.

From there, we go into the realities of scaling a hard-tech company: recruiting outside of major hubs, managing rapid capital inflows without distorting culture, and why conviction from investors ultimately comes down to one thing. delivering on what you said you’d do.

[00:00:00] What makes a rocket company actually move fast without breaking?

[00:03:27] Why does speed come from people, not leadership?

[00:08:15] How do you unify engineers from SpaceX, Blue Origin, and legacy aerospace?

[00:10:33] How do you scale trust when the organization grows from 10 to 350+ people?

[00:15:14] What does it take to keep a hard-tech company focused on the real bottlenecks?

[00:18:06] Personal Operating System: Energy, Sleep, Exercise, and Sustainability

[00:21:31] Stress, Burnout, and Why Over-Optimization Can Backfire

[00:24:06] Hiring at Scale While Maintaining a High Talent Bar

[00:29:50] Recruiting Top Talent to the Pacific Northwest & Relocation Challenges

[00:32:46] Why Stoke Wins: Ownership, Learning, and Talent Density

[00:37:13] AI, Software, and Building Internal Tools (BoltLine)

[00:41:23] Convincing Investors in a Contrarian, Capital-Intensive Thesis

[00:45:04] Surviving Bad Market Timing & Hard Fundraising Cycles

[00:48:34] Building & Evaluating a Strong Cap Table (Investors as Long-Term Partners)

[00:51:05] Final Advice: Ownership, Introspection, and Founder Lessons

Episode Takeaways

• Speed is a function of people quality, not management intensity
• Trust is the operating system of high-performance engineering teams
• The best organizations are designed around bottlenecks, not hierarchy
• Hiring mistakes usually come from overvaluing skill and undervaluing collaboration
• Capital doesn’t create execution. It amplifies whatever system already exists
• Ownership is the ultimate driver of performance in technical teams

Subscribe to VHTB for more insights on the talent, culture, and finance sides of space startups.

Resources & Links

Andy Lapsa

• LinkedIn
• Website
• YouTube
• X

VHTB Team:

• Space Capital
• Better Every Day Studios
• AdAstra Talent Advisors