When Excellence Becomes Dependency

Have you heard the statement :

"20% of the workforce does 80% of the work."

Whether the numbers are exactly right is almost irrelevant.

Because if you've spent enough time in startups, scale - ups, or even large organizations, you've probably seen it. There are always a handful of people who seem to be everywhere.

The project that suddenly goes off track.

The customer escalation nobody wants to touch.

The process that breaks at the worst possible time.

The deadline that somehow still needs to be met.

The same names keep appearing.

At some point, I started wondering whether this is simply how organizations work. Maybe contribution is never evenly distributed. Maybe ownership isn't evenly distributed either.

But another question kept bothering me.

The Question That Kept Bothering Me

If a small group of people is consistently carrying a disproportionate share of the work, what responsibility does the organization have towards them?

Organizations often seem to want it both ways.

They are happy to acknowledge extraordinary contributions during performance reviews, leadership meetings, and company - wide updates.

Yet when it comes to compensation, promotions, influence, and recognition, the expectation suddenly becomes equality.

The people carrying the heaviest load are often told they are "team players."

The people contributing significantly less are often protected by the idea that everyone should be treated the same.

The more I think about it, the more I believe those are two very different concepts.

Equal respect is important.

Equal opportunity is important.

Equal compensation regardless of contribution is a much harder argument to make.

Particularly in environments where a small group is genuinely keeping the company moving.

If organizations are comfortable benefiting from disproportionate contribution, should they also be comfortable rewarding disproportionate contribution?

I keep coming back to that question.

Recognizing Reality

As founders, we rarely talk about this openly.

In the early stages of a company, disproportionate contribution is often unavoidable.

Resources are limited. Roles are unclear. Processes are immature.

Few people step up.

In those moments, I don't think the answer is pretending everyone contributes equally.

The answer is recognizing reality.

If an organization genuinely depends on a small group of people to deliver a disproportionate amount of value, those people should be compensated differently.

They should be promoted differently.

They should be recognized differently.

Not because they are better human beings.

But because they are creating outsized impact.

At the same time, organizations have a responsibility to develop the remaining 80%.

The goal shouldn't be to permanently rely on the same people forever.

The goal should be to create more people capable of carrying meaningful responsibility.

Otherwise the company isn't building capability.

It's simply consuming it.

There may be periods when a startup needs a handful of people to carry most of the load.

What shouldn't happen is expecting that reality while rewarding everyone as though contributions are equal.

If the company is benefiting disproportionately from certain individuals, those individuals should benefit disproportionately from the company's success.

That seems less like favouritism and more like fairness.

The Weight of Being Reliable

The employee perspective is equally interesting.

Imagine being one of the people consistently carrying a disproportionate share of the work.

Not for a week.

Not during a product launch.

Not during a crisis.

But month after month.

Year after year.

At first, it feels rewarding.

You earn trust.

You get visibility.

Everyone relies on you.

You become the person people call when something important needs to happen.

But eventually a different question starts to emerge.

If the organization depends on my contribution more than most, does the organization value my contribution differently?

Because responsibility without recognition eventually feels like exploitation.

Responsibility without advancement eventually feels like stagnation.

Responsibility without compensation eventually feels like charity.

Organizations often ask their highest performers to do more because they can.

The more difficult question is whether those organizations are equally willing to give more in return.

If a company genuinely believes that a small group of employees creates a disproportionate amount of value, then pretending all contributions are equal is not fairness.

It's avoidance.

The expectation should not be that everyone receives identical rewards regardless of impact.

The expectation should be that rewards broadly reflect contribution.

That doesn't mean paying one employee four times more because they work four times harder.

Organizations are more complex than that.

Collaboration matters.

Market realities matter.

Team dynamics matter.

But if promotions, compensation, influence, and recognition fail to acknowledge exceptional contribution, the message becomes clear:

"We appreciate your effort. We just don't value it differently."

And eventually, high performers respond rationally.

Some leave.

Some disengage.

Some reduce their effort to match the incentives around them.

Perhaps that's why the question isn't whether organizations should rely on exceptional people during certain stages of growth.

The real question is whether those organizations are willing to reward exceptional contribution as aggressively as they rely on it.

Because if a company is comfortable receiving 80% of the outcomes from a small group of people, it should be equally comfortable ensuring those people receive disproportionate recognition, compensation, opportunities, and career growth.

Anything less begins to look like an organization benefiting from excellence while refusing to acknowledge its value.

Fairness, Equality and Contribution

And that's where the danger begins.

Because what starts as high performance can eventually become dependency.

Every important project goes to the same people.

Every urgent problem lands on the same desks.

Every critical decision requires the same approvals.

The organization gradually builds itself around a handful of individuals. On paper, this looks efficient. In reality, it's fragile.

The highest performers become increasingly overloaded while everyone else has fewer opportunities to stretch and grow.

Managers stop developing talent because it's easier to rely on proven performers.

Knowledge becomes concentrated.

Burnout becomes inevitable.

And eventually, the company finds itself trapped by the very people who helped make it successful.

Not because those individuals wanted that responsibility.

But because the organization never invested enough in creating more people like them.

This is where the conversation becomes uncomfortable.

Because fairness doesn't necessarily mean identical outcomes.

It doesn't necessarily mean identical compensation.

And it certainly doesn't mean ignoring differences in contribution.

Recognizing exceptional contribution and creating opportunities for others are not competing goals.

The best organizations do both.

They reward people who create outsized impact while actively developing the next generation of contributors.

Because relying on the same 20% forever is not a strategy.

It's a temporary condition.

One that might help a startup survive.

But one that should never become the foundation of the company itself.

Building More Than Heroes

As founders, we often become attached to our highest performers.

The people who say yes before being asked.

The people who repeatedly save the day.

But perhaps the real test of leadership isn't how much we can get from those people.

Perhaps it's whether we're willing to recognize their contribution as honestly as we rely on it.

Because if your company only works when a handful of people consistently over perform, then the business isn't truly scalable.

It's simply borrowing energy from its most committed employees.

And eventually, that debt comes due.

Continue reading

• About Neha Gupta

• Too many cooks spoil the broth | The Not So Perfect Odyssey

• AI is not free labor | The Not So Perfect Odyssey