When building a leadership team, choose people with proven experience over strong opinions. If you were climbing Everest, you'd want a guide who's been to the summit before, not someone who watched a video. Experience tells you the shortcuts and what fails in execution - knowledge that only comes from solving the same problem repeatedly.
The business advice worth taking comes from people who have actually done the thing, not people who only studied it. Picture climbing Everest: would you want a video of the route, or a guide right next to you the whole way?
The choice seems obvious when you frame it that way. But people make the wrong decision on this all the time when it comes to business. They take advice from people who have watched the video but never made the climb.
After decades of building companies, one principle keeps proving itself: the right kind of experience always wins. Not just over lack of experience, but over capital, over connections, over confidence. If I was dropped into the center of a major city and could only bring one thing - a million dollars in cash or expert experience in building businesses - I'd choose the experience without hesitating. Money alone is a magnet for mistakes. The right kind of experience is a magnet for money.
Why is advice from experienced operators more valuable than opinions from smart people?
People who've studied a problem have a model in their head. People who've solved it repeatedly have scar tissue - they know the shortcuts, what looks good on paper but fails in execution, and the three things that almost always go wrong. When someone has done something twice or three times, they have a repeatable process, not just a theory. That gap between model and real-world experience is where most businesses get derailed.
One of the most expensive lessons most founders learn is that opinion is everywhere. Everyone has a view on what you should do, how you should position it, what the market wants, what your pricing should be. The problem is that most of that input comes from people who've studied the subject, not people who've done it. There's a massive difference between those two things.
When someone has studied a problem, they have a model in their head of how it works. When someone has solved a problem repeatedly, they have scar tissue. They know the shortcuts. They know what looks right on paper but fails in execution. They know the three things that almost always go wrong that nobody writes about. That gap in knowledge - between model and real-world experience - is where most businesses run into trouble.
I've sat across the table from advisors who sounded brilliant. Articulate, confident, well-read. They had strong opinions about our strategy, our team structure, our marketing, our positioning. Some of that input was genuinely useful. But the input that changed our trajectory always came from people who had already been exactly where we were trying to go.
What does it mean to master the few things that matter in your business?
You identify the two or three levers that drive the most growth in your business and go deep on those. Then delegate everything else to people with relevant experience. Like a horse wearing blinders during a race, your focus becomes a competitive advantage. The best operators I know don't chase every opportunity - broad goals dilute energy, but narrow focus compounds it.
Success in business isn't about being good at everything. It's about being genuinely expert in the few things that drive your specific category of growth, and then being ruthless about making those a daily study.
Think about how a horse wears blinders during a race. That's not a limitation - it's a competitive advantage. The horse isn't distracted by what's happening on both sides. Every bit of focus goes forward. The best operators I know function the same way. They've identified the two or three levers that matter most in their business, and they go deep on those. Everything else they delegate to people with the relevant experience.
The founders who chase everything - who treat every opportunity equally, who pivot constantly because something shinier appeared - rarely build what the focused ones build. Broad goals dilute energy. Narrow focus compounds it.
How do you evaluate if someone has the right experience for a key role?
Look for track records, not testimonials. Has someone done this exact problem or one close enough twice or three times? If they describe past failures by explaining what they did differently next time, they have repeatable process. If they blame circumstances - the market shifted, the timing was off, the team wasn't right - they're still building models instead of refining one through repetition.
When I'm evaluating whether someone belongs in a key seat on a team, the question isn't whether they're smart or motivated or loyal. The question is whether they've already solved the specific problem we need solved. Not a similar problem. That exact problem, or one close enough that the transferable lessons are direct.
Look for track records, not testimonials. Someone who's done something once might have gotten lucky. Someone who's done it two or three times has a repeatable process. That repeatable process is what you're actually hiring for.
The other thing I watch for: how does the person describe past failures? Experienced operators can tell you exactly what went wrong and what they did differently the next time. People with opinions but limited experience tend to explain failures in terms of circumstances - the market shifted, the timing was off, the team wasn't quite right. Those explanations may even be accurate. But they signal someone who is still building a model rather than someone who has refined one through repetition.
How do you use experienced advisors to accelerate your growth?
Access to someone who's already made the trip compresses years of trial and error into clear decisions informed by experience you haven't accumulated yet. The right advisory structure collapses time - someone who knows which detours are worth taking and which miles look easy but are brutal. This doesn't mean outsourcing judgment, it means calibrating your instincts against proven experience so they get sharper faster.
If you want to collapse the time between where you are and where you're trying to go, the fastest path is always access to someone who has already made that trip. Not someone who's read the map. Someone who knows which three miles look easy on paper and are actually brutal, and which detours are worth taking.
That's what the right advisory structure does. It compresses years of expensive trial and error into a set of clear decisions informed by experience you haven't yet accumulated but urgently need. That doesn't mean outsourcing your judgment. It means calibrating your judgment against proven experience so your own instincts get sharper faster.
Opinion is everywhere. Experience is rare. When you're building something that matters, build it with people who've been to the summit - not just people who watched a video about what it looks like up there.
Related Insights How to Be a Better Leader and Develop a Leadership Team → Related Insights Mike Dillard Talks With Chris Guerriero About Starting a Board →