A small, talent-dense team focused on breakthrough AI research. A lab operating with lean squads that can experiment, iterate, and deliver impact at a pace traditional structures rarely allow. A few exceptional people, moving fast, testing ideas, breaking through barriers. Every decision matters. Every iteration counts.
This is not a startup or seed-stage dream.
This is Meta.
So why are companies, even giants, wanting to move like startups right now?
Well, the answer is in the question.
Fewer layers. Faster loops. Smaller, sharper teams that move at the speed of light.
As 2026 planning ramps up, companies of all sizes may not have any other choice, facing unprecedented pressure:
Because of this, what’s emerging is this startup-inspired, lean org design where ownership and proximity to the problem matter most. The old logic of “more people automatically equals more progress” has been long dead and might actually raise a couple eyebrows if said in any boardroom. Now, that logic has given way to a mandate that's so much more precise: smarter organization, tighter teams, and sharper missions...
AKA the very hallmarks that make so many startups so effective.
But here’s what few leaders will admit: this pivot to startup org design isn’t inspired by ambitious growth or wide pastures for innovation. What is it really, other than a survival response to the times we’re in? A model built out of necessity? We’re seeing downwind symptoms of this up close in leadership searches across industries:
The companies reorganizing around lean, talent-dense teams aren’t necessarily chasing startup "culture" per se, but rather, they’re solving the math problem on everyone’s minds…
How can companies drive growth without simply adding or cutting people?
This is the core tension of modern business. Growth vs. effiency.
Growth used to mean hiring, and efficiency meant cuts. But those levers don’t work like they used to. Today, the challenge is doing more with what you already have (or even less), faster, smarter, and with greater impact, especially as AI reshapes workflows and expands capabilities beyond anything we’ve seen before.
It's a tall order; one that renders so many of us deer on ice.
How are companies tackling their biggest P&L expense—headcount—to drive measurable outcomes in light of this challenge? How do companies turn their largest expense into their greatest advantage when those levers of adding or cutting just don’t work the same way?
One solution we’re seeing for this is the “return to startup” or startup-inspired org design.
Thing is... most organizations aren’t ready to hear what this actually means.
Behind the scenes, what might that really look like?
Management layers consolidated
Mid-level talent reassigned
Team scopes shrunk
What Susan Li (CFO) described publicly as a “few-dozen-person, very talent-dense” team is, privately, a recognition that most innovation bottlenecks are organizational, not technical.
In between the lines is Meta’s quiet admission that innovation doesn’t die from lack of capital, but from the wrong org structure and coordination. Meta is essentially re-creating a startup within a giant (one might be inclined to say, the giant), prioritizing velocity and tight feedback over consensus and headcount.
And yet, the paradox is impossible to ignore. On October 22, Meta announced plans to cut 600 people from its “bloated” AI unit, FAIR... while sparing everyone in the TBD Lab. Even the company preaching startup agility is still pulling the oldest lever in the book: efficiency by subtraction.
Meta’s paradox is the industry’s paradox: everyone wants startup speed, but few are willing to admit they’re still relying on legacy levers to get there.
The same return-to-startup mindset and philosophy are now taking root at Snap, where CEO Evan Spiegel is reorganizing around small, startup-like squads designed to reignite creativity and execution amid stalled ad revenue.
Snap is now betting on small, sharp teams that operate like a startup.
Spiegel put it plainly: “That’s the model: a startup within Snap, leveraging our brand, distribution, and infrastructure—and fueled by focus, accountability, and hustle.”
What's interesting is that this memo and "return-to-startup" follows a year of cuts (10% of their global workforce) in 2024. It’s not hard to question whether these cuts are truly about building startup agility, or just a convenient way to rebrand austerity as innovation.
That's not a question for us to answer, only raise. Not all for naught, what we are seeing, however, are some real byproducts of these decisions taking root:
How is startup-inspired org design trends impacting hiring?
We’re seeing this same recalibration in how companies are thinking about leadership hiring, too.
There’s less focus on “big company pedigrees” or “global scope” experience for pedigree’s sake. Specifically in tech, companies now prioritize:
These things suddenly outpace those who built their careers managing hundreds, especially in early-growth companies.
And yet, as we see in our search work, this model only works when leaders are willing to invest in their people. Founders and CEOs who fail to nurture hidden potential—who assume every hire must arrive “fully formed” or “turnkey”—inevitably lose their best talent to companies that still bet on potential.
While companies are searching for startup-style operators, many still treat hiring like a procurement exercise, asking candidates, “What can you do for me?” instead of “How can we grow together? How can we nurture your excellence and unleash something extraordinary?”
The irony is that the very founders and executives trying to reintroduce startup agility often forget what made startups magnetic in the first place… talent development, mentorship, freedom to not know something, room to grow, and the ultimate belief in potential.
Too often, yes.
Many companies see “lean teams” and “startup DNA” as a license to slash headcount or impose efficiency for efficiency’s sake.
But real startup thinking is about driving the extraordinary potential of people you have, and the talent you’re brave enough to bring in. So here’s what we’re advising right now:
The companies getting this right are engineering startup conditions inside complex machines (regardless of size or stage), and pairing them with leaders who can actually build, mentor, and scale within those constraints. “Returning to startup” isn’t translated to slashing headcount.
Sometimes, it looks like the opposite. Sometimes, it looks like adding and hiring the exact right talent to unleash the extraordinary.
Look at any headline today and you’ll see companies imposing hiring freezes, shrinking teams, or cutting layers—all in the name of recapturing “startup speed” and accelerating innovation. On the surface, it looks disciplined. But here’s the truth most leaders overlook: small teams alone don’t create startup-level impact.
The organizations that actually thrive are the ones that embrace growth, mentorship, and risk-taking with their people. They invest in talent others overlook, bet on unconventional career trajectories, and create conditions where the rare A-players can stretch and experiment.
It’s willingness to bet, hire, and cultivate the extraordinary. That’s growth, too, isn’t it?
In the end, the name of the game is about building teams that are smart, empowered, and relentless in pursuit of impact, where every hire is a multiplier and every leader is a force amplifier. And it’s how headcount stops being a cost.
The companies thriving in 2026 will engineer true startup-inspired envirionments. And they’ll do it by hiring leaders who can build small, move fast, and multiply impact.
At Hunt Club, we’re helping companies architect these teams. Starting with the leaders who can build them.