A VC, a Headhunter, and a Trainer Walk into a Bar

A VC, a Headhunter, and a Trainer Walk into a Bar
  • 5.0 (8)
  • Investing
  • Weekly

VHTB is your guide to the talent, culture, and capital forces shaping the hard tech startup ecosystem. Each episode, hosts Justus Kilian of Space Capital, Seyka, and Brian Mejeur of AdAstra Talent Advisors, and Matt Gjertsen of BUILT bring stories and lessons from the front lines of building and backing some of the most innovative companies on the planet.

  1. 4h ago

    Q3 ‘26 Recap: Record hard tech funding, seven-figure comp, and the bubble question

    Hard tech is attracting an extraordinary amount of capital. With billion-dollar funding rounds, new investors entering the market, and growing interest in space, defense, and energy, 2026 is shaping up to be a potentially record-breaking year. But does this momentum signal a lasting shift in how we value hardware, or are we watching another investment bubble take shape? In this episode of VHTB, Justus Kilian of Space Capital, Seyka Mejeur of AdAstra Talent Advisors, and Matt Gjertsen of BUILT examine the forces reshaping the hard tech ecosystem. We explore why investors traditionally associated with software and other industries are moving into hard tech, what increasingly competitive compensation packages mean for startups, and why experienced SpaceX talent is attracting attention far beyond the space industry. We also discuss a challenge that funding alone cannot solve: deploying physical technology in the real world. From nuclear reactors and data centers to shipyards and defense infrastructure, scaling hard tech means working with communities, navigating regulations, and demonstrating tangible benefits. As Matt points out, even the most promising technologies can struggle if the people affected by them aren't brought into the conversation. But as hardware valuations climb and automation transforms manufacturing, bigger questions emerge: Is this growth sustainable? What will it mean for American jobs? And how are shifting priorities around defense, energy, and national security shaping the future of hard tech? As hard tech enters its next chapter, will capital, talent, and public support come together to sustain the momentum? Episode Highlights00:00 Introduction: The state of hard tech in Q3 2026 00:55 Record capital flows and new investors entering hard tech 02:26 How billion-dollar funding rounds are reshaping the market 03:43 Why competition for technical talent is intensifying 05:39 Why everyone wants experienced SpaceX talent 07:10 Why compensation and equity aren't always enough 09:09 Why scaling hard tech requires community support 10:04 What hard tech companies can learn from SpaceX's community messaging 12:03 Are rising hardware valuations sustainable? 14:21 Automation, defense manufacturing, and the future of jobs 16:39 Reframing clean energy around AI and national security 18:58 The risks of regulation, budgets, and long-term financing 19:58 Is hard tech entering a new equilibrium? Key TakeawaysHard tech investment is accelerating. Larger funding rounds and new investors are changing the competitive landscape for space, defense, and energy companies.Competition for technical talent is intensifying. Startups are competing with well-funded companies and adjacent industries for experienced engineers and leaders.Compensation expectations are shifting. High salaries and equity demands are making it increasingly difficult for early-stage companies to recruit top talent.Deployment requires more than capital. Community engagement, regulatory challenges, and public acceptance could determine how quickly hard tech companies scale.Hardware valuations remain an open question. The hosts debate whether rising valuations represent a sustainable market shift or a temporary surge.Industrial growth involves difficult trade-offs. Automation and efficiency may conflict with expectations around job creation.Industry narratives are evolving. Defense, clean energy, AI infrastructure, and national security are increasingly connected through changing political and market priorities. What do you think? Is hard tech entering a sustainable period of growth, or could today's investment surge be creating new risks? Share your perspective in the comments, and subscribe to VHTB for more conversations about the talent, culture, and capital shaping the future of hard tech. Links & ResourcesSpace Capital: https://www.spacecapital.com/BUILT: https://builtleaders.com/AdAstra Talent Advisors: https://adastra.us/

    Q3 ‘26 Recap: Record hard tech funding, seven-figure comp, and the bubble question

  2. Oct 21

    What happens when your startup outgrows its early hires?

    What happens when your company grows faster than the people who helped build it? As hard tech startups move through Series A and Series B, the roles that once required adaptability and problem-solving can quickly demand specialized experience, established processes, and leadership at a much larger scale. The people who helped get the company off the ground may not always be the right fit for what comes next. In this episode of VHTB, Brian Mejeur of AdAstra Talent Advisors, Matt Gjertsen of BUILT, and Justus Kilian of Space Capital discuss how founders can navigate the difficult balance between supporting loyal early employees and bringing in the expertise needed to scale. We talk about why early hires don't always grow at the same pace as their companies, how to recognize when a role has outgrown someone's capabilities, and why transparency during the hiring process can prevent difficult conversations later. We also discuss the value of bringing in experienced leaders who can mentor existing team members, how narrowing responsibilities can preserve institutional knowledge, and why ambiguous leadership titles can create unnecessary challenges as companies grow. The goal isn't simply to replace people who can't keep up. It's to build a team that can evolve with the company while respecting the contributions of those who helped get it there. Episode Highlights[00:00] When a startup grows faster than its people [01:49] How roles change between early stage and Series B [04:12] Why transparency matters when roles outgrow employees [06:15] Preserving talent by redefining responsibilities [06:58] How experienced leaders can mentor early employees [08:15] Planning ahead before a hiring gap becomes a problem [10:52] When high-performing early hires aren't ready for the next stage [11:58] Preparing employees for bigger leadership responsibilities [13:13] The problem with ambiguous "Head of" titles [15:06] Defining roles before making difficult hiring decisions [17:24] Setting clear expectations for the next stage of growth [17:52] Giving employees a path to grow or transition Key TakeawaysCompanies can grow faster than individuals. The skills needed to build an early-stage function aren't always the same ones required to manage it at scale.Early employees bring value beyond their current roles. Trust, institutional knowledge, cultural alignment, and commitment to the company's vision can be worth preserving as responsibilities change.Transparency makes difficult transitions easier. Clearly communicating how roles may evolve helps employees understand expectations and prepare for what's next.Experienced leaders can help early hires grow. Bringing in someone with an established playbook can provide mentorship while allowing the company to retain valuable internal knowledge.Not everyone wants to work at every stage of a startup. Some people thrive on zero-to-one challenges, while others prefer the structure and specialization of a more mature organization.Ambiguous leadership titles can create problems later. Hiring someone as "Head of" a function without defining the scope can make future leadership changes more complicated.Clear roles lead to better decisions. Defining the problems a position needs to solve today and six to twelve months from now helps founders assess whether to develop existing talent or recruit externally. Have you experienced a situation where your company grew faster than someone's role or responsibilities? How did your team handle the transition? Share your experience in the comments. We'd love to hear how other founders and leaders are navigating these challenges. Subscribe to VHTB for more conversations on the talent, culture, and capital shaping the hard tech ecosystem. Links & ResourcesAdAstra Talent AdvisorsBUILTSpace Capital

    What happens when your startup outgrows its early hires?

  3. Oct 14

    How do founders create productive conflict on their teams?

    What happens when your team stops telling you what you need to hear? Building a hard tech company takes conviction, but that same conviction can make it difficult for founders to hear opposing perspectives. When people hesitate to challenge decisions, important problems go unaddressed, and leaders risk losing access to the information they need most. In this episode of VHTB, Justus Kilian of Space Capital, Brian Mejeur of AdAstra, and Matt Gjertsen of BUILT discuss how to create a culture where disagreement is productive, feedback is welcomed, and teams feel comfortable challenging ideas without making conflict personal. We talk about why truth-seeking matters in leadership, how communication styles can unintentionally discourage people from speaking up, and why both founders and executive teams share responsibility for healthy disagreement. We also cover practical ways to build this skill, from understanding how colleagues prefer to communicate to using pre-mortems that help teams confront difficult questions before problems escalate. Because productive conflict isn't about winning arguments. It's about creating an environment where different perspectives help everyone make better decisions. Chapters[00:00] Introducing productive conflict in hard tech teams [01:54] Why founder conviction can make disagreement difficult [03:11] Creating space for honest feedback and pushback [05:28] Why truth-seeking matters in startup leadership [06:43] Using curiosity to uncover different perspectives [09:34] The challenges of escalating disagreements [13:49] How leaders respond to bad news shapes transparency [14:36] Why productive conflict is a muscle you need to build [16:26] Why conflict can be a gift to your organization [17:39] Building a culture where disagreement leads to growth Key TakeawaysConviction shouldn't come at the expense of truth. Founders need people who can challenge assumptions and bring difficult information forward, even when it contradicts their thinking.Productive conflict is a shared responsibility. Leaders need to consider how their communication affects others, while executive teams must also be willing to push back.Curiosity makes disagreement more useful. Truth isn't always obvious, and approaching different perspectives with curiosity can uncover information that might otherwise be missed.Hierarchy changes how teams disagree. As organizations grow, leaders need clearer ways to raise concerns, escalate issues, and challenge decisions without creating unnecessary friction.Conflict is a skill that can be practiced. Low-stakes disagreements and pre-mortem exercises help teams become more comfortable giving and receiving difficult feedback.Disagreement can reveal blind spots. Instead of treating conflict as a threat, teams can view it as an opportunity to identify problems and improve decisions. How does your team handle disagreement? Are people comfortable challenging decisions and bringing difficult feedback forward? Share your thoughts in the comments, and let us know what has helped your team build a culture of productive conflict. Subscribe to VHTB for more conversations on the talent, culture, and capital shaping the future of hard tech. Links & ResourcesSpace CapitalBUILTAdAstra Talent Advisors

    How do founders create productive conflict on their teams?

  4. Oct 7

    What makes a great early hire at a hard tech startup?

    What makes someone a great hire at an early-stage hard tech startup? When you're building your first team, it's easy to look for the best engineer, the deepest technical expert, or the person with the strongest pedigree. But the person who's perfect for a 100-person company may not be the person you need when you're building your first 10. In this episode of VHTB, Matt Gjertsen (Built), Justus Kilian (Space Capital), and Brian Mejeur (AdAstra Talent Advisors) get into what makes early-stage hires different and why the definition of great talent has to change as a company grows. How much should founders value specialization versus adaptability? We talk about why early hires need to work across a broad set of problems, how a single person can raise the bar for everyone who comes after them, and why some of your first employees should be talent magnets who make other exceptional people want to join. We also get into why assembling a team of individual superstars doesn't always produce the strongest team. Existing trust, communication, and experience working together can help early teams move faster, especially when the company inevitably has to change direction. And underneath all of this is one of the most important qualities an early-stage hire can have: the ability to learn quickly. When you're operating in white space, today's problem may not be tomorrow's problem, which means the people you hire need to be able to adapt just as quickly as the company does. Episode Highlights[00:00] What makes a great early-stage hire different from a great employee? [02:45] Why your earliest hires need to have an outsized impact [05:00] Why early-stage startups need breadth, not just specialization [07:00] How founders should think about their first 10 hires [09:00] How existing trust and team chemistry can help startups move faster [10:30] Why superstar teams can create more friction [11:00] Why adaptability matters when an early-stage startup has to pivot [12:00] The most important ability Justus looks for in early-stage hires [13:00] Why experience gives early employees a useful mental model [15:00] What the interview process can reveal beyond technical ability [17:00] Why early-stage hiring is more about momentum than pedigree Episode TakeawaysEarly-stage hires have an outsized influence because each person represents a much larger percentage of the company.Your first employees aren't just filling roles. They're establishing the standard for skill, execution, culture, and the people who join after them.A strong early hire can be a talent magnet who attracts other exceptional people through their network, reputation, and credibility.Early-stage companies often need people with broad, adaptable skill sets because roles and priorities can change quickly.Success for an early hire can mean building a function and eventually handing it to someone more specialized as the company grows.A collection of individual superstars doesn't automatically create a high-performing team. Existing trust and shared working experience can help teams reach productive velocity faster.Early-stage startups are more likely to pivot, making adaptability especially important when there aren't enough people to reorganize around every new problem.The rate of learning can be more valuable than mastery of one narrow domain when employees are constantly working in unfamiliar territory.Experience gives early hires mental models for communication, escalation, decision-making, and solving problems without established processes.As a company matures, hiring criteria can shift toward deeper specialization because the organization has more people, structure, and clarity around the problems it needs to solve. Subscribe to VHTB for more conversations on the talent, culture, and capital shaping the hard tech startup ecosystem.Links & ResourcesSpace CapitalBUILTAdAstra Talent Advisors

    What makes a great early hire at a hard tech startup?

  5. Sep 23

    Why are the best founders advisable, not malleable?

    The person who starts a company isn't necessarily the person that company will need five years later. So can founders actually change? Early on, a founder might be building the product themselves, solving technical problems, and proving that something works. But as the company grows, the job changes. Now it's about bringing in the right people, finding resources, telling the story, setting the vision, and leading an organization through the ups and downs. In this episode of VHTB, Matt Gjertsen (Built), Justus Kilian (Space Capital), and Seyka Mejeur (AdAstra Talent Advisors) get into what it actually takes for founders to evolve as the demands of their companies change. How do you hold onto the conviction that got you this far while still being willing to hear that you might be wrong? We talk about why curiosity and self-awareness matter, what investors and candidates can look for when deciding whether a founder is capable of evolving, and why "strong opinions loosely held" might be one of the better ways to think about founder leadership. But growth also means letting go. Sometimes you're handing off something you're great at to someone who might not initially do it as well as you. Sometimes you're learning an entirely new set of skills because the company no longer needs the version of you that built its first stage. That "death of a past self" can be one of the hardest parts of becoming the leader your company needs next. We also get into something that's easy to miss from the outside: being at the top can be lonely. Founders carry problems they can't always bring back to their teams, which makes trusted investors, other founders, spouses, and executive coaches important places to think, process, and be human without having to hold the strong face all the time. Episode Highlights[00:00] What does it take for a hard tech founder to change? [02:08] Why the CEO role requires founders to continually evolve [04:18] How do you balance founder conviction with a willingness to change? [07:38] The self-awareness founders need as their companies grow [10:46] How do you know when you're being too hardheaded? [12:22] How candidates can tell if a founder is willing to change [13:27] The role executive coaches can play beyond business strategy [14:27] Why being at the top can be a lonely role [16:07] Why founders have to change if they want their companies to grow Episode TakeawaysThe CEO role changes as a company grows, and founders have to evolve with it.Conviction matters, but the best founders can take in new information without immediately discounting it.Founder change is most effective when it comes from within rather than being imposed from the outside.Curiosity and self-awareness are strong signals that someone is capable of continuing to grow.Every new stage of a company can require founders to let go of skills, responsibilities, and even parts of the identity that made them successful before."Strong opinions loosely held" creates room for conviction and adaptability to exist at the same time.Candidates can learn a lot about a founder by asking when they last changed their mind because of new information.Founders need trusted people they can be open with because there are challenges at the top that can't always be shared with the broader team.If you want the company to grow, the person leading it has to be willing to grow too. Subscribe to VHTB for more conversations on the talent, culture, and capital forces shaping the hard tech startup ecosystem. Links & ResourcesSpace Capital: https://www.spacecapital.com/ BUILT: https://builtleaders.com/ AdAstra Talent Advisors: https://adastra.us/

    Why are the best founders advisable, not malleable?

  6. Sep 16

    What are the real paths to grow a career in hard tech?

    What does career growth actually look like in hard tech when becoming a manager isn't the only option? A lot of people reach a point in their career where they've accomplished something big and start asking what's next. Do you become a people manager? Stay an individual contributor and become even better at your craft? Move into venture capital? Or is there another way to think about career growth entirely? In this episode of VHTB, Seyka Mejeur (AdAstra Talent Advisors), Matt Gjertsen (Built), and Justus Kilian (Space Capital) get into the different paths available to people building careers in hard tech and why moving into management shouldn't automatically be considered the next step. We talk about the real trade-offs between staying technical and becoming a people leader. Managing people means developing an entirely different set of skills: communication, delegation, decision-making, dealing with people's problems, and ultimately helping other people solve problems instead of always being the person with the answer. But those aren't the only two paths. What if you treated your career like a portfolio and thought carefully about the three to five bets you might get to make? We get into how engineers and operators can move into venture capital, why the companies you choose early in your career matter, and how time on the venture side can make you a stronger operator if you decide to go back. And underneath all of these paths is something much simpler: whose problems are you solving? Whether you're interviewing, joining a team, leading one, starting a company, or investing in one, being proactive about finding and solving important problems may be one of the most valuable career skills you can develop. Episode Highlights[00:00] What are the different ways to grow a career in hard tech? [03:32] Why your best individual contributor may not be your best manager [05:30] How should companies create career growth without forcing people into management? [08:14] Why a manager's job is to help other people solve problems [10:03] What actually makes someone ready to become a leader? [13:05] Can engineers build a career in venture capital? [15:46] Why you should think about your career as a portfolio [17:20] How venture capital can make you a better operator [19:59] The career skill traditional education doesn't teach you Episode TakeawaysBecoming a manager isn't the only way to grow your career in hard tech.Individual contributors and people managers require different skills, and neither path should automatically be treated as the better one.Great technical performance doesn't necessarily mean someone will be a great people leader.Moving into management means shifting from solving problems yourself to helping other people solve problems.Engineers and operators can also consider venture capital as another path for applying their technical experience and network.Your career can be viewed as a portfolio of a handful of important bets, making the companies you choose to join a meaningful part of your long-term trajectory.Moving between operating roles and venture capital can build different skills and perspectives without requiring either one to become a permanent career.Career growth starts with proactively understanding other people's problems and figuring out where you can create the most value.One of the hardest transitions from school to work is learning to identify problems yourself instead of waiting for someone to tell you what to solve. Subscribe to VHTB for more conversations on the talent, culture, and capital forces shaping the hard tech startup ecosystem. Links & ResourcesSpace Capital: https://www.spacecapital.com/ BUILT: https://builtleaders.com/ AdAstra Talent Advisors: https://adastra.us/

    What are the real paths to grow a career in hard tech?

  7. Sep 2

    Where will hard tech find the skilled manufacturing talent it needs?

    America wants to re-industrialize. But where are all the people needed to actually build everything going to come from? For decades, college and university were pushed as the first-class path while trade schools and skilled manufacturing careers weren't looked at in the same light. Now some of the people with the deepest machining and manufacturing expertise are getting closer to retirement, while demand for those skills is growing. The challenge isn't simply finding more people. It's figuring out how to transfer decades of knowledge, make manufacturing careers more accessible to a new generation, and use automation to increase what each skilled person can accomplish. In this episode, we talk about what the manufacturing talent shortage actually looks like, why mom-and-pop machine shops hold so much valuable knowledge, and how companies are approaching the problem through automation, acquisitions, apprenticeships, and bringing critical skills in-house. We also get into whether manufacturing expertise itself could become one of the most defensible advantages a hard tech company can build. Episode Highlight[00:00] Where will America's hard tech talent come from? [01:27] Why the manufacturing talent shortage is so difficult to solve [02:39] How college became the first-class path over skilled trades [03:19] Why highly skilled machinists are becoming harder to find [04:36] How much manufacturing knowledge has already disappeared? [05:36] The aging workforce problem inside legacy manufacturers [06:03] Can automation help close the manufacturing talent gap? [07:40] Are startups actually struggling to fill these roles yet? [10:20] Bringing mom-and-pop manufacturing into the modern era [11:13] How do we transfer expertise before skilled workers retire? [12:16] Why companies may need to build their own talent [13:45] Could manufacturing expertise become a competitive moat? [14:18] Why the manufacturing talent cliff may still be ahead Key TakeawaysThe manufacturing talent shortage isn't just about headcount. Some of the hardest skills to replace take years of hands-on experience to develop.For decades, college was pushed more heavily than trade schools, leaving many people unaware of highly skilled manufacturing career paths.As experienced machinists and other skilled workers retire, transferring what they know to the next generation becomes increasingly important.Automation doesn't necessarily eliminate the need for manufacturing workers. It can lower the barrier to entry and increase the productivity of the people already doing the work.Small mom-and-pop shops hold a significant amount of manufacturing expertise, creating opportunities to modernize, aggregate, and scale those capabilities.Companies can also build talent internally through apprenticeships and knowledge transfer, although getting experienced employees to make their expertise less dependent on themselves can be difficult.In hard tech, bringing difficult manufacturing capabilities in-house may be expensive, but that difficulty can also make them defensible. Where do you think the next generation of skilled manufacturing talent will come from, and what needs to change to make those careers more attractive? Subscribe to VHTB for more conversations about the talent, culture, and capital forces shaping the hard tech ecosystem. Links & ResourcesSpace CapitalBUILTAdAstra Talent Advisors

    Where will hard tech find the skilled manufacturing talent it needs?

  8. Aug 26

    Is SpaceX's dominance good or bad for the hard tech ecosystem?

    What happens when one company gets so far ahead that an entire ecosystem starts depending on it? SpaceX has transformed access to orbit, but that success creates a new problem. If rideshare capacity becomes more limited and SpaceX increasingly prioritizes its own satellites, what happens to all of the companies that built their businesses around that access? And this isn't just a launch problem. TSMC shows what can happen when a dominant infrastructure provider chooses not to compete with its customers. Other technology platforms show the opposite: once you own the infrastructure, the temptation to move vertically and capture more of the value can be hard to resist. In this episode, we talk about the risks of building around a single critical provider, why enormous technical moats are so difficult to challenge, and whether scarcity ultimately creates the pressure for new competitors and business models to emerge. We also get into whether the market can solve these bottlenecks on its own, or whether some infrastructure becomes strategically important enough that policy eventually has to play a role. Episode Highlights: [00:00] What happens when one company controls access to a market? [02:38] TSMC and the value of not competing with your customers [03:51] What Apple and Amazon show about owning the platform [05:43] SpaceX's unusual position in launch and satellite connectivity [07:10] The tension between serving customers and maximizing shareholder value [08:42] Can you actually build a competitor to a massive technical moat? [11:20] Why access to space matters to the entire innovation ecosystem [13:22] The risk of building a company around one launch provider [15:14] Could launch scarcity create new markets and business models? [16:08] The opportunity for intermediaries to solve the rideshare problem [17:03] When does policy need to protect access to critical infrastructure? [18:15] Can constraints ultimately push the market toward more innovation? Key TakeawaysWhen one company controls critical infrastructure, its business decisions can affect an entire ecosystem.TSMC shows how a dominant infrastructure provider can help an ecosystem flourish by choosing not to compete with its customers.SpaceX has a different tension because launching its own satellites may eventually be more valuable than providing capacity to other companies.Technical moats in hard tech can take decades and enormous amounts of capital to overcome, making it difficult for the market to respond quickly when a bottleneck emerges.Companies building around rideshare or future Starship capacity need to think carefully about how dependent their business model is on a single provider.Limited launch capacity could create opportunities for new launch providers, rideshare intermediaries, and other business models.If the market can't provide enough access to strategically important infrastructure, policy may eventually become part of the solution. Where else in hard tech do you see a single company becoming a critical bottleneck for the rest of the ecosystem? Subscribe to VHTB for more conversations about the talent, culture, and capital forces shaping hard tech. Links & ResourcesSpace Capital: https://www.spacecapital.com/ BUILT: https://builtleaders.com/ AdAstra Talent Advisors: https://adastra.us/

    Is SpaceX's dominance good or bad for the hard tech ecosystem?
See All (57)

5
out of 5
8 Ratings

About

VHTB is your guide to the talent, culture, and capital forces shaping the hard tech startup ecosystem. Each episode, hosts Justus Kilian of Space Capital, Seyka, and Brian Mejeur of AdAstra Talent Advisors, and Matt Gjertsen of BUILT bring stories and lessons from the front lines of building and backing some of the most innovative companies on the planet.

Information

You Might Also Like