When Your 6-Year-Old Solves The Productivity Paradox Better Than CEOs
What happens when you stop choosing environments and start designing them
Comparison is the thief of joy – or is it?
Last week I had an interesting conversation with my 6-year-old. We were talking about school work and what it means to be successful at school.
I asked him if he would rather be a big fish in a small pond, or a small fish in a big pond – would he prefer to know lots more than everyone in his small class, or would he prefer to be compared to the entire school and potentially know a lot less in comparison?
His answer surprised me because he intuitively grasped something most adults miss about how environments shape not just our confidence, but our actual capacity for impact.
The Problem with How We Think About This
The conventional wisdom treats this as a simple choice about ego and comfort zones. Big pond = challenging but humbling. Small pond = comfortable but limiting. End of story.
But when I started thinking about this in terms of productivity – especially for founders versus people working in large organizations – I realized this framing completely misses the point. We're not really choosing between pond sizes. We're choosing between fundamentally different types of leverage and learning systems.
And most of us don't even realize what we're actually optimizing for.
The Real Question
What if the real question isn't about pond size, but about the type of productivity you're optimizing for – and whether you understand the hidden trade-offs that determine your long-term impact?
The Productivity Paradox Nobody Talks About
Founders appear to have ultimate productivity leverage. Every decision is theirs, no bureaucracy slowing them down, maximum autonomy to execute on ideas. They're the ultimate big fish.
They're really working within what I’d call a "limited resources problem." Their productivity is held back by things like not having enough money, not being able to hire top people, and having a smaller audience or market. They get really good at doing many things, but they often can’t go deep in one area. It feels like they’re doing great, but in reality, they’re working on smaller problems with fewer tools.
Meanwhile, corporate employees seem constrained by politics, process, and endless meetings. They feel like small fish swimming in bureaucratic oceans.
But they’re often working on big problems with a lot of support behind them. For example, a product manager at Google who improves click rates by just 0.1% could affect more people than most startup founders ever will. Even if they seem like a “small fish,” they’re actually making a huge impact.
Two Different Games, Two Different Wins
The key insight is that founders and corporate employees are playing completely different productivity games:
Founders are optimizing for flexibility and future doors – each project teaches them how to spot opportunities, test ideas quickly, and build something from nothing. Even when they fail, they're collecting skills and connections that create more paths forward.
Corporate employees are optimizing for execution value – they're building skills in managing complexity at scale, optimizing existing systems, and coordinating across massive organizations. Every success teaches them how complex systems actually work.
Neither is inherently better. They're just different.
The Sequential Strategy That Actually Works
The most impactful people I know don't choose between these environments – they sequence strategically between both to build complementary skill sets.
The pattern usually looks like this:
Start corporate to learn how complex systems work at scale
Go founder to learn how to build systems from scratch
Return corporate (or start again) with both skill sets, now capable of what I call "intrapreneurship"
The timing matters enormously. Going founder first often creates people who struggle to operate in complex organizations. Going corporate first without founder experience creates people who can optimize existing systems but can't build from zero.
Don't Choose the Pond: Design It
But here's what I've come to realize: maybe the whole question is wrong.
Instead of asking "Which is better?" we should be asking:
What kind of productivity ecosystem helps me thrive?
Do I need mentors? Protegés? Feedback loops? Quiet time? Access to new ideas?
What combination of environments gives me the learning gradient I need?
The smartest people I know practice "smart pond-hopping":
Be the big fish in a small pond to build confidence and systems
Jump to a bigger pond to retrain, retool, and reframe
Create your own hybrid pond (remote work, niche communities, founder teams)
They don't get stuck in either environment. They use both strategically.
The Meta-Game
Founders are building productivity systems. Corporate employees are optimizing within them. The highest leverage comes from understanding both – how to build the system AND how to optimize within it.
Think of it like this: if you only know how to build, you'll constantly reinvent wheels. If you only know how to optimize, you'll never create the breakthrough that changes everything.
It's Not the Pond. It's the Current.
You don't grow just by changing your pond - you grow by learning how to swim faster, deeper, and smarter. Sometimes, the best productivity move isn't becoming a bigger fish or finding a better pond. It's learning how to generate your own current.
The next time you're faced with a "big fish, small pond" decision, ask yourself:
What kind of productivity do I want to focus on right now?
Am I trying to learn new skills or get better at what I already know?
How much challenge do I need to keep growing?
How can I create a setup that helps me do both — grow and perform well?
The question isn't whether you're a fish trying to climb trees – it's whether you're swimming in the right direction for the impact you want to create.
So when I asked my 6-year-old that question about being a big fish or small fish, he couldn't decide. After thinking about it for a moment, he said, "Can't I just be both?"
Maybe that's the most productive answer of all.
What's your experience been? Have you been focusing on the ‘wrong’ type of productivity? I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments.
Have a great week.
He thinks like a true adult :)