How Culture Shapes Everything
Author: Ivan Kovpak, CEO & Co-founder
Most companies write culture decks that nobody follows. The values sound inspiring in Notion but disappear when actual decisions happen.
We're different. Our 9 principles aren't aspirational—they're operational. They show up in every product feature, every GTM decision, every hire, every meeting.
You can trace any decision we make back to at least one of the principles. Usually several.
That's not because we're rigidly adhering to dogma. It's because the principles are how we actually think. When you genuinely believe something, it shapes your choices automatically.
Here's how.
Product: Why simple beats comprehensive
Most B2B tools try to do everything. They have 47 features, 19 nested menus, configuration screens for every edge case.
We have 5 tabs: Dashboard, ICPs & Personas, Signals, Records, Audiences.
That's People > Process in action.
We could build infinite configuration options. "Let users customize everything!" sounds customer-centric. But it's not.
Because complexity kills adoption. If a Product Champion can't get value in 15 minutes, they won't bring it to their VP. If a VP can't understand it in a 5-minute walkthrough, they won't buy.
The principle says: invest in humans who make smart decisions, not systems that prevent dumb ones.
So we made the product simple to use by doing the hard work in the background. Multi-dimensional ICP scoring across dozens of attributes? Hard to build, easy to use—just define criteria, system handles the math. Aggregating 20+ signal sources? Hard to build, easy to use—turn on sources you want, we aggregate automatically.
Simple interface. Sophisticated engine. That's the trade-off.
People > Process also explains why we built webhooks before native integrations.
Native integrations are convenient. Click a button, data flows to Salesforce. Easy.
But they're also limiting. We can only integrate with tools we've specifically built for. And we'd be making product decisions for our users: "You should use Salesforce this way."
Webhooks are harder to configure. But they give users Freedom & Responsibility. Push data to Clay, n8n, Zapier, Make, custom internal tools—whatever makes sense for your workflow. We don't dictate how you work. We give you intelligence, you route it however you want.
Will we eventually build native integrations? Yes. But webhooks came first because we respect user autonomy more than we value onboarding convenience.
Overeducate, Not Oversell explains our entire funnel structure.
We don't gate our interactive demo behind a form. You don't need to "book a call" to see the product. Just click, explore, understand what we do.
Most companies would call this insane. "You're letting people see the product without capturing their email?"
Yes. Because information asymmetry kills deals.
Traditional B2B funnels optimize for lead capture, not buyer education. They hide functionality behind forms, sales calls, NDAs. The buyer has to make a $50K decision based on marketing copy and a rushed demo.
We flip this. Show everything up front. Let buyers understand exactly what they're getting. By the time they're ready to talk, they're educated—not confused.
This extends to pricing. We publish it. $25/month to start, $12K+/year for Sales-Assisted. No "contact us for pricing."
Why? Context, Not Control.
Hidden pricing is a control mechanism. It forces buyers into sales conversations before they're ready. We'd rather give buyers context—this is what it costs, this is what you get—and let them decide when to engage.
Do we lose some deals because people self-disqualify on price? Probably. But we also save time not pitching to people who were never going to pay what we're worth.
Both sides win when context is transparent.
GTM: Why we don't have a traditional sales team
Our pricing model tells you how we think about GTM: Sales-Assisted PLG
Start at $25/month. No sales call required. No demo request. No qualification. Just sign up, configure your ICPs, start seeing results.
Scale organically. As you use more of the platform—more ICPs, more signals, more records—cost scales with value.
By the time you hit enterprise needs ($12K+/year), you already know the product works. Sales conversations aren't pitches. They're negotiations about volume discounts, custom SLAs, dedicated support.
This is Overeducate, Not Oversell applied to our own GTM motion.
Most B2B companies optimize their funnel for control. Qualify leads before showing product. Require discovery calls. Gate pricing behind "talk to sales."
We optimize for education. Show product first. Let users self-qualify. Publish pricing.
The result? We focus resources on shipping better product and delivering more value, not on building massive sales teams to convince people they need us.
Context, Not Control also explains why we don't do traditional demand gen.
We're not running LinkedIn ads that say "Book a demo." We're not cold calling lists from Apollo. We're not sponsoring conferences to collect badges.
Instead: we publish this handbook. We run a podcast teaching GTM strategy without pitching our product. We create interactive demos anyone can explore.
Why? Because we'd rather educate 10,000 people who might never buy than pitch 100 people who aren't ready.
The 10,000 educated people include future customers, future employees, future partners, future advocates. Some will buy eventually. Some will refer us. Some will just spread ideas that make the market better.
All of that compounds. Pitching 100 unqualified leads doesn't.
Highly Aligned, Loosely Coupled shows up in how we route prospects to different plays.
We don't have one playbook for all leads. We have multiple ICPs (up to 8), multiple personas (Champion, Decision Maker, Buying Committee, Blocker), multiple engagement stages (Hot, Warm, In-Market, Cool, Cold).
Different combinations get different treatments:
- High ICP score + Champion persona + Hot stage → Direct outreach from founder
- High ICP score + Decision Maker persona + Warm stage → Nurture sequence with case studies
- Medium ICP score + Champion persona + In-Market stage → Educational content, not pitch
- Low ICP score + any persona + any stage → Don't contact, just monitor
We're aligned on the goal: only reach out when both fit and timing are right. But we're loosely coupled on execution: different people handle different plays, different channels, different messaging.
Marketing doesn't need my approval to launch a campaign targeting Hot Champions. Sales doesn't need permission to reach out to Warm Decision Makers. Everyone understands the strategy, executes independently.
That's how you scale without bottlenecks.
Hiring: Why we optimize for learning velocity
Most companies hire for experience. "We need someone who's done this before."
We hire for learning velocity. "Can this person figure out something they've never done?"
That's Fail Fast applied to hiring.
Experience means someone succeeded in a different context—different market, different company, different team, different constraints. That experience might transfer. Or it might not.
Learning velocity transfers always. If someone can go from zero knowledge to competent execution in weeks, they'll succeed regardless of what we throw at them.
This matters especially in startups. Markets shift. Products pivot. Strategies change. The person who "has experience" in last year's strategy is less valuable than the person who can learn this year's strategy faster.
How do we test for learning velocity?
We give candidates real problems to solve during interviews. Not leetcode puzzles. Actual work they'd do if hired.
"Here's our ICP scoring model. Explain how you'd use it to prioritize these 50 leads."
"Here's our competitor's positioning. What would you change about ours?"
"Here's a Bounty task we're considering. How would you approach it?"
We're not looking for perfect answers. We're looking for thinking process. How fast do they grasp new concepts? How do they handle ambiguity? Do they ask clarifying questions or make assumptions?
The candidates who ask great questions usually outperform the ones who give confident answers.
High Performance explains why we structure work in pairs, not solo.
Most companies assign one person to one task. Efficient, right? No duplication of effort.
Wrong.
Solo work optimizes for throughput. Pair work optimizes for quality and learning.
When two people work together, the weaker one learns from the stronger one. The stronger one learns by teaching—explaining forces clarity. Both catch mistakes the other misses. Both contribute ideas neither would have alone.
Yes, it "costs" more in the short term—two people doing what one could do. But it produces better outcomes and accelerates skill development. Over time, the person who learned by pairing becomes strong enough to teach the next person.
That compounds. Solo work doesn't.
This is especially critical for new hires and interns. Pair them with someone experienced and they ramp 10x faster than if they're fumbling through documentation alone.
Freedom & Responsibility shows up in our tool access model.
We don't give everyone every tool on day one. We have tiers:
Tier 1 (everyone, day 1): Slack, Linear
Tier 2 (earned after proving need): Claude.ai (after hitting usage limits for 2 days), Notion (after needing to document something)
Tier 3 (role-specific): Prosp.ai and Supergrow (SDR/BDR only), analytics tools (data team only)
Why tier it? Why not just give everyone everything?
Because Freedom & Responsibility means you earn tools by demonstrating you'll use them well.
Claude.ai is powerful. It's also expensive and easy to misuse. If someone's asking it to write generic LinkedIn posts instead of using it for deep research, they're wasting money and not learning.
So we start everyone with basic tools. When they hit the ceiling—"I need Claude because I'm doing competitor analysis and need to process 50 pages of documentation"—we grant access.
This isn't about being cheap. It's about ensuring people understand why they need a tool before we give it to them. That understanding shapes how they use it.
Operations: Why we don't have standups
We're a remote-first, globally distributed team. North and South America, Europe, Asia. Time zones span 12+ hours.
Daily standups are impossible. And even if they weren't, they'd be wasteful.
Highly Aligned, Loosely Coupled means we don't need real-time status updates. We need transparency about what people are working on so we can coordinate without micromanaging.
Enter Standupbot.
Every day, team members post async updates in Slack:
- What I did yesterday
- What I'm doing today
- Any blockers
Everyone sees what everyone else is working on. If there's overlap, people coordinate directly. If someone's blocked, others jump in to help. If someone's going dark on priorities, it's visible immediately.
This gives us the transparency of standups without the synchronous overhead. People post when convenient for their timezone. People read when convenient for theirs.
Context, Not Control explains our Tuesday meetings.
Every Tuesday, 9am PST, the whole team meets. We're spread across continents, so this time isn't perfect for anyone—but it's tolerable for everyone.
Most companies use all-hands for announcements. "Here's what leadership decided."
We use it for context. "Here's what's happening in the market. Here's what we're learning from customers. Here's why we're prioritizing X over Y this month."
We don't do status updates—that's what Standupbot is for. We don't do tactical planning—that happens in Linear.
We share strategy. We debate priorities. We align on what success looks like.
Then people go execute independently. Because they have context.
Total Feedback shows up in our 1:1 structure.
Every Thursday, founders meet with team members. Not just direct reports—everyone.
These aren't performance reviews. They're not status updates. They're context exchanges and feedback loops.
"Here's what I'm seeing in the business. Here's why we made this decision. Here's what I need from your function."
"Here's what I'm stuck on. Here's where I need help. Here's what I think we're doing wrong."
The conversation goes both ways. I give feedback on their work. They give feedback on my decisions.
This only works because of Total Feedback as cultural norm. If people are afraid to tell me I'm wrong, 1:1s become performative. If I'm not willing to hear criticism, people stop giving it.
But when both sides are vulnerable—"I don't know how to solve this" meets "I think your approach is flawed"—trust builds fast.
Fail Fast shapes our entire task structure in Linear.
We have two types of tasks: Standard and Bounty.
Standard tasks are proven processes. Someone already figured out how to do this. Now we're just executing at scale. These have templates, checklists, clear success criteria.
Bounty tasks are experiments. We don't know if this will work. That's why we're trying it.
The distinction matters because expectations are different.
Standard tasks should be executed efficiently. If you deviate from the template, you should have a good reason. If you fail, something went wrong—either the template was bad or execution was off.
Bounty tasks should be executed quickly. If you spend three weeks planning before trying, you're doing it wrong. If you fail, that's fine—as long as you learned something and documented it.
The lifecycle is: Bounty (experiment) → Standard (proven process).
When a Bounty task succeeds, we convert it to a Standard task with a template. Now everyone can execute it without reinventing.
When a Bounty task fails, we kill it fast and try something else.
This workflow only works with Fail Fast as cultural norm. If people are punished for failed experiments, they stop running them. If people are rewarded for successful experiments regardless of how long they took, they'll over-plan instead of moving.
We reward speed of learning, not perfection of outcomes.
Why culture can't be copied
Competitors read this handbook. Some will try to implement these ideas.
They'll create Bounty and Standard task types in their project management. They'll publish their pricing. They'll give employees "freedom and responsibility."
It won't work.
Not because the ideas are wrong. Because culture isn't a checklist. It's a system where every piece reinforces every other piece.
Freedom & Responsibility only works when paired with Context, Not Control. You can't give people autonomy without giving them the information to make good decisions.
Fail Fast only works when paired with Total Feedback. You can't iterate quickly if people are afraid to admit experiments failed.
Highly Aligned, Loosely Coupled only works when paired with High Performance. You can't execute independently if people don't understand strategy deeply enough to make smart trade-offs.
Remove any one principle and the others weaken. Add them one at a time and they won't stick.
You need all 9, operating simultaneously, reinforced through every decision, for years.
That's why culture is defensible. Not because competitors can't understand it. Because they can't replicate the system without blowing up their existing culture first.
The compounding effect
Here's what happens when culture shapes everything consistently:
Product decisions compound. Simple UI attracts users who value clarity. They refer others who value clarity. Over time, your user base self-selects for people who think like you.
GTM decisions compound. Educating 10,000 people creates a network of advocates. Some become customers years later. Some refer customers. Some join your team. All of them spread ideas that make your category better.
Hiring decisions compound. People who thrive in your culture refer others who'll thrive. People who don't fit leave early. Over time, cultural alignment gets stronger without you forcing it.
Operational decisions compound. Async updates create documentation. Documentation becomes training material. Training material helps new hires ramp faster. Faster ramps mean you can hire faster.
None of this works in quarter one. Or quarter four.
It works in year three, when the compound effects start dominating the linear ones.
That's why culture matters. Not because it makes you feel good. Because it's the only thing that scales without your direct involvement.
When culture shapes everything, the company builds itself.
Next: How we work — The tactical systems that make these principles operational: Standupbot, Linear, meetings, tools.
Deep dive: Building a diverse team — How learning velocity beats experience, why we hire interns, and what they actually do.
Foundation: Our culture: The real engine — The 9 principles this chapter builds on.
Made with Bullet