From Series A momentum to Series B structure
For many founders, Series A is supposed to be a slingshot: capital, velocity and a clearer path to product-market fit. In practice, it can feel more like a centrifuge—teams expand, decisions multiply and the organization’s “center” starts to wobble. According to startup operators, the risk is not simply failing to grow, but failing to grow coherently.
In a commentary published by HomeKnow-How on Jan. 30, 2026, Anton Marchanka, CEO of digital fitness company Zing Coach, argues that roughly half of startups stall or fold after Series A because growth alone does not create alignment. While Series A often validates demand, he writes, Series B is the real stress test: whether the company can operate as a reliable system under sustained pressure.
Marchanka’s central warning is what he calls “context collapse”—a gradual breakdown of shared understanding as headcount rises, processes evolve and teams interpret goals differently. The transition from Series A to Series B, he contends, is less about moving faster and more about building structure that preserves clarity.
Five principles for Series B readiness
Marchanka lays out five operating principles he says helped bridge the gap from execution-driven growth to operational readiness for scale. The themes are familiar to many scaling founders—focus, ownership and systems—but his framing emphasizes reducing hidden organizational drag before it becomes visible in metrics.
1) Shift from feature expansion to structural leverage
Many Series A companies expand by shipping more features on top of a product that already works. That can drive short-term adoption, but Marchanka argues it can also entrench constraints in how value is delivered. In his view, the key inflection point comes when leaders stop asking what to build next and start asking what must be redesigned underneath so value can be delivered repeatedly across contexts without proportional increases in complexity.
The practical implication: Series B readiness may depend less on adding surface-level functionality and more on building the infrastructure—technical and operational—that makes delivery repeatable and resilient.
2) Turn the mission into an operating constraint
In early stages, a mission statement can function as inspiration. At scale, Marchanka writes, ambiguity becomes expensive. He argues that the mission must evolve into something operational: a mechanism that constrains decisions and accelerates trade-offs across product, engineering and partnerships.
Rather than debating a growing list of possible initiatives, he recommends defining success in measurable terms and orienting teams around the capabilities the company must develop to win in its market environments. A mission that works as a “pressure system,” he suggests, reduces cognitive load and helps teams converge on consistent decisions.
3) Protect focus by editing aggressively
As inbound opportunities increase post-Series A, the hardest discipline is not rejecting bad ideas—it is saying no to good ones. Marchanka describes strategy as a thesis rather than a roadmap: initiatives that do not reinforce the central argument should be removed, even if they look attractive in isolation.
For founders, this shifts the role from approving features and projects to acting as editors. The goal is coherence over breadth—building a company that compounds its advantage rather than dispersing attention across adjacent bets.
4) Create ownership at the level of outcomes
As teams grow, coordination costs can rise faster than headcount. Marchanka argues that traditional structures can unintentionally push decisions upward just as speed becomes critical. His proposed remedy is to assign clear, end-to-end ownership of outcomes—not merely functional responsibilities.
These operators, he writes, should sit close to real-world signals, monitor performance “in practice,” and coordinate directly across disciplines to resolve issues quickly. The emphasis is less on hierarchy and more on proximity to feedback: decisions improve when made by those closest to the consequences.
5) Treat communication as infrastructure
Marchanka positions communication as a scaling system, not a cultural afterthought. When shared understanding erodes, assumptions diverge and errors propagate quietly—often before leadership notices. To counter this, he argues communication must be designed: clarity measured, latency reduced and decisions codified so they persist beyond meetings.
In practice, he recommends stripping communication down, moving more decisions into asynchronous documentation and being explicit about trade-offs. The payoff, he claims, is resilience: more deep work time, decisions that “stick,” and a shared system-level understanding that survives rapid growth.
A different definition of scaling
Marchanka’s broader message is that Series A proves something can work, while Series B asks whether it can work reliably, repeatedly and at scale. Growth may validate demand, but system design determines whether the company can endure the pressure that growth creates.
Anton Marchanka leads Zing Coach, an AI-driven digital fitness business. His background includes executive roles in mobile and online businesses, including time as General Manager at Mosaic Group (IAC), where he managed a portfolio of apps with hundreds of millions of users globally, according to the author bio accompanying the piece.
While the article is framed as founder guidance rather than a financing update, its argument reflects a common concern across startup ecosystems: the post-Series A phase is often where operational complexity begins to outpace informal coordination. For companies aiming at Series B, Marchanka suggests, the challenge is not simply building faster—it is preventing the organization’s context from collapsing as it grows.
Related
