How we built, from scratch, the team that later generated more than half our ARR

In a startup's early stage, I built a four-person team from scratch, hiring each person directly, with no defined process yet — we documented it while we served clients. Assigning responsibilities by each person's real strength, and resolving disagreements with a shared objective criterion instead of hierarchy, is what held that team together. It ended up being the base that brought in the first Mexican clients, who came to represent more than 50% of the company's ARR.

How do you divide the work when there are no defined processes yet?

There was no manual for how to do this. We were defining, at the same time, the technical and client-facing documentation, while the team was already serving real accounts. Instead of dividing the work evenly, I assigned responsibilities by each person's real strength: some were stronger client-facing, others better suited to documentation or the technical pieces of implementation. That assignment, more than an org chart, is what gave the team its shape from the start.

What happens when two people disagree with no precedent?

Operating without a defined playbook, disagreements were frequent — two people could have different views on how to handle a new situation with a client. I kept a foundation of mutual respect and autonomy: anyone could propose their own solution, but the decision criterion was always the same — which approach required less product effort while letting the client operate or move forward with their integration. That shared, objective criterion kept disagreements from becoming personal or hierarchical.

Did that initial team survive the company's growth?

That team became the base that brought in the first Mexican clients, who ended up representing more than 50% of the company's ARR, and the starting point for expanding to the rest of LATAM. The structure and size held until a second client, in Colombia, demanded direct Level 1 support for end users — that's when the team had to grow, but the original group I had built stayed together as the core around which the expanded team was assembled.

The lesson I take

Building a team without a playbook doesn't mean improvising without judgment. It means the judgment — not the process that doesn't exist yet — is what sustains the hard decisions. That shared judgment is what let the team grow without fracturing.

Frequently asked questions

How do you build a team from scratch with no playbook yet? By assigning responsibilities based on each person's real strength instead of splitting work evenly, and establishing a shared objective decision criterion from the start, so disagreements aren't resolved by hierarchy or turn personal.

What should you do when two team members disagree with no precedent? Define in advance an objective criterion both accept (for example, which approach generates less product effort without blocking the client), and use it as arbiter instead of the opinion of whoever has more seniority or formal authority.