The Ick of Top 1% Talent in Start Ups
Why you’re hurting your chances of building something amazing when you use this in your talent strategy
I have a visceral reaction every time I see a job posting or company website that says something like:“We’re looking for top 1 % talent — people from top-tier consulting firms, top-tier universities”… top-tier everything.
Partially, this is personal. I have had a chip on my shoulder since high school. Back then, my peers were headed to Ivy Leagues and top tier private schools, whereas I was the outlier who went to a state university where I lived — tuition-free because my dad worked there. I was embarrassed to say where I was going. I stalled as long as I could. I was jealous. I wanted opportunity. I wanted people not to care where I went, but rather what I had done, what I was doing with my life, and who I could become.
Fast-forward: As a liberal studies kid newly graduated, who was doing professional singing/acting while trying to leave retail, I landed my first entry level role at a seed-stage startup in NYC. I fell in love with learning, with building, the business, and my team — and grew an ops leadership career from the ground up. Then came the hyper-growth phase at that same company — and suddenly, we started hiring “top 1 % talent.” People from McKinsey, Wharton, Bain — you name it.
What I’ve come to believe is that pedigree and performance aren’t the same thing — and that distinction matters critically early stage.
What’s wrong with the “top 1 % talent” mindset?
“Top 1 %” sounds like “the 1%.” Top 1 %”. All I hear when I see that phrase is top 1 % economically. It signals elitism — we’re not like you. It attracts the same pedigreed archetypes and shuts out unconventional but excellent builders. It also misses the point: performance isn’t concentrated among a few 1%ers. McKinsey found that healthy teams outperform unhealthy ones by up to 30 % in financial performance, regardless of individual credentials, so team cohesion beats individual credentials. Pedigree and performance aren’t the same thing — and that distinction matters early-stage. As Harvard Business Review points out, companies that rely on degrees or brand-name credentials as hiring filters often screen out capable people who’ve built their skills through alternative routes (Fuller & Raman, 2021). This practice disproportionately affects candidates from nontraditional and underrepresented backgrounds — people who may have the same abilities, but not the same access to elite networks. What’s especially interesting that I’ve personally seen, is that it’s often first-gen graduates of these elite institutions who end up closing the gate behind them.
Consulting ≠ building. I learned a lot from the ex-consultants I worked with at Seamless, and I’ve used a lot of what I learned from them in my career. They were some of the smartest people I’ve met. They bring great frameworks, systems thinking, and polish —they’re great at later stage! But earlier stage companies need builders and doers. Consultants are trained to analyze, recommend, and hand off — not to own, build, and iterate in the trenches. And when they skip the relationship-building part — when they come in hot without earning trust (which they often do)— it can alienate teams fast, which is a scale-killer. Startups thrive on adaptability, and building, not analysis.
Real top 1 % performers don’t call themselves “top 1 %.” Honestly, I have worked with and coached a lot of 1% talent. The people I mentioned above..my clients…none of them refer to themselves this way. Various sources — for example, Moore & Healy (2008) validate that overconfidence undermines decision-making and performance in uncertain environments — exactly the kind startups operate in. Humble, adaptable people learn faster and lead better. They’re coachable, and self-aware — they’re certainly not referring to themselves this way. They seek feedback. They don’t lead with credentials because they’re too focused on learning and building, and proving themselves.
Top 1 %” profiles often break down in ambiguity and stress. Startups are inherently chaotic and undefined — success depends less on pedigree and more on how people navigate change and emotional distress. The ones who thrive are emotionally aware, adaptable, resourceful, resilient, and ambitious — not necessarily those who’ve always succeeded in structured, linear systems that reward control, and a set playbook over curiosity. Research on adaptive performance backs this up: people who are emotionally stable, driven, and flexible adapt faster and perform better in high-stress, fast-changing environments where they must continually learn new tasks, technologies, and ways of working (Pulakos et al., 2000; Huang et al., 2014). These are skills often honed outside rigid systems like consulting or finance — by people who’ve had to build, stretch, and stay grounded amid uncertainty in their professional lives, sure — but notably, their personal lives.
Top 1 %” is frankly… lazy hiring language — and the data doesn’t support it. When I see that phrase, what I really hear is: “We don’t know what we’re looking for, and we don’t have time to think about it — so we need a shortcut, so I’m just going to copy what I see others in the space doing.” And that’s exactly what it is: a shortcut. A tech buzz worthy phrase that tries to capture grit, athleticism, curiosity, execution, and humility among others— traits that can’t be measured by brand. Across studies, where is the correlation between elite credentials and early-stage success? Gallup’s meta-analyses points to trust, safety, and complementary skills — not résumé prestige, that predicts sustained performance. The obsession with ex-consultants and bankers isn’t evidence-based; it’s status-based.
The best teams aren’t built on prestige. They’re built on learning, trust, resilience, and a number of clearly defined traits and skills — on knowing, specifically, who you need in the room to win.