Lots to disagree about here, but I'd prefer to treat the moral of this story as, not all the same people will thrive in a small company after it's hit a growth

Lots to disagree about here, but I'd prefer to treat the moral of this story as, not all the same people will thrive in a small company after it's hit a growth inflection point. This is okay! Without some of those folks who are willing to go broad and wear a lot of hats, companies can't get to where they need to be to start growing in the first place. The responsibility of leadership and managers in this situation involves creating venues where early, impactful employees can be adequately rewarded without becoming impediments to their personal growth or the growth trajectory of the company. Imagine how much less burnout the author would have felt if the stock situation didn't keep him locked into the company far beyond when he didn't feel welcome. I've worked at enough places where early contributors white-knuckled their way through changing values until the first possible liquidity event, or just left a big financial upside on the table because they couldn't make the numbers and their sanity work at the same time. These "growing pains" result in burnout, poor quality and communication from individuals we've previously trusted as veterans, and a tumultuous culture with conflict between the old guard and new layers of management. I believe we can minimize the friction on both sides by significantly increasing the exercise period for stock options, prioritizing hiring growth in duplicative roles for individuals showing early signs of culture clash and disengagement, and empathetic coaching that names the problem (terminal burnout) and includes resources for teams or companies that better fit that person's disposition.