Direct answer: Three types of employees emerge when you announce a deal: Group 1 wants the deal (“Let’s freaking go”), Group 2 objects vocally but complies, and Group 3 sabotages behind your back. Typically Group 3 is a family member or cushy-job employee.
Filmed in Sacramento, California | GPS 38.5816, -121.4944
Why The Three Types Of Employees Matter In Any Deal
If you are in any type of deal as a business owner, entrepreneur, offer owner, or practitioner, there are three groups of people you need to identify. Because you are going to find out — some people do not want what you want. The more significant the deal, the more this conversation matters. A $500K expansion might survive quiet resistance from one team member. A $10M exit will not.
Learning to classify the three types of employees before you announce a deal is one of the highest-leverage moves available to any owner. This concept sits inside the Exit Ratio 360™ system as a team preparation topic that pairs with the saboteur audit framework. See who will sabotage your exit for the broader analysis this framework fits inside.
Group 1 — The “Let’s Freaking Go” Employees
Group 1 is on board. They understand the deal, they support the direction, and they are ready to do the extra work.
Group 1 language you will hear:
- “Yes, let’s freaking go.”
- “Let’s get this deal done.”
- “It is going to give us opportunity.”
- “It is going to help the business.”
- “It is going to make our lives easier long-term.”
- “We are going to have to put in work and effort — but we are more than willing.”
- “We are 100% on this deal.”
Group 1 knows the deal will require more work. They know their responsibilities will expand. They know they will have to do more things. And they are still saying yes. This is the group you build the deal around — the people who signal genuine commitment through their willingness to acknowledge the cost.
Group 2 — The Vocal Objectors Among Your Three Types Of Employees
Group 2 is not on board. For whatever reason, they do not want the deal. They may have to put in extra work. They may have to change their schedule. They may have to change part of their life. They have a reason, and that reason is typically voiced.
Group 2 language you will hear:
- “I do not really like this deal.”
- “I just want to go on the record.”
- “I really do not want to be a part of it.”
- “I did not sign up for this scope of work.”
- “I have concerns about the timeline.”
Group 2 is not dangerous — yet. They are stating their objection openly. That transparency is actually valuable because it gives you the chance to address the underlying concern or negotiate the specific accommodation. When you start getting into big projects, people start thinking about the work stacking on top of their existing responsibilities. Group 2 is the group where you either address the concerns or watch the concerns transform into something worse.
Group 3 — The Saboteurs You Must Identify Early
Here is where the risk lives. If Group 2 is not taken care of, they go into role number three. Group 3 becomes super dangerous — the role of a saboteur.
Group 3 does not voice objections publicly. Group 3 agrees in meetings and disagrees in action. Group 3 says all the right things and does all the wrong things. Specifically:
- Drags feet on deliverables
- Introduces “questions” that stall processes
- Leaks selective information to create doubt
- Poisons other team members through hallway conversations
- Makes “innocent” mistakes that delay critical milestones
- Escalates minor issues to prevent forward momentum
Group 3 sabotage looks like incompetence but is actually intention. The pattern reveals itself when you notice that the same person keeps being present at every setback, always with a plausible explanation for why the setback was not their fault.
Who Is Actually In Group 3 — The Surprising Answer
Here is the finding that surprises most owners. From my experience — not every single time, but typically — Group 3 is one of two specific people:
| Group 3 Type | Why They Sabotage |
|---|---|
| Family member with something to lose | Fear of losing their role, income source, or family standing that depends on the current structure |
| Employee with a cushy job | Recognition that accountability is coming and their comfort will end if the deal succeeds |
The cushy-job employee sees the writing on the walls. When they see accountability enter the office and the building, they start dragging their feet. They try to make sure processes do not go through. The accountability person is probably going to be the same person who sabotages the deal. They typically go hand in hand — and if not, they hang out together.
The family member has a different motivation but the same behavior pattern. Their resistance is emotional rather than tactical, but the sabotage looks identical from the outside. Recognizing that family members and cushy-job employees are the most common Group 3 members lets you focus your roster audit on the highest-probability sources.
The Roster Audit For All Three Types Of Employees
Before you announce the deal, take a look at your roster. Who is in your management team? Then go through each person and ask:
- Are they going to be in Group 1 — on board, willing to do the extra work?
- Are they going to be in Group 2 — vocally against but willing to comply?
- Are they going to be in Group 3 — sabotaging behind my back to kill the deal?
Write the answers down. Not in a shared document. Not in the office. At home, in your personal notes. See why you want to keep a journal of the events when exiting a business for the related private-documentation practice.
For team members you cannot confidently classify, treat them as Group 2 until they prove otherwise. Group 2 with careful handling can become Group 1. Group 2 without careful handling becomes Group 3.
The Dual-Verification Protocol For All Three Types Of Employees
Here is the specific protocol for validating your classifications. Do it in two stages — group meeting first, one-on-one second.
Stage 1 — Group Meeting: “We are going to do this deal. Speak now or forever hold your peace. Everybody has their ability to voice concerns right now, in this meeting, in front of the team.”
Stage 2 — One-On-One Meetings: “In the meeting you said you were on board. I want to make sure that is accurate. Is there any reason we are not going to move forward on this project? Do I have 100% of your support?”
You may be thinking — that is ridiculous, why would I ask my management team the same question twice? They are not infants. They are not children. Here is why it is worth the extra hour:
- You have a lot on the line — potentially the largest transaction of your business life
- People say different things in private than in groups
- Confirming twice solidifies the direction for everybody, including yourself
- The gap between the group answer and the private answer reveals Group 3 members
- Documented dual confirmation protects you legally if a manager later claims they never agreed
The extra hour is one of the highest-return time investments you can make in the pre-announcement phase of any significant deal.
The NDA Layer When Employees Learn About Exit Deals
If the deal is an exit strategy specifically, add the NDA layer to the roster audit and dual-verification protocol. Have a legal conversation with an attorney about whether NDAs need to be in place before you discuss the exit with any team member.
The attorney is probably going to say — heck yes. Is there a faster word than yes? Most attorneys default to requiring NDAs signed before any exit conversation happens with team members. Most buyers want this anyway. They want to make sure everything has been covered through proper legal channels.
See how you could use an NDA to your advantage in your business for the framework on structuring NDAs that actually protect exit conversations. The NDA + dual-verification combination is what allows you to have honest conversations about the deal without triggering the leaks that damage valuation.
The Buyer-Side Question About Your Three Types Of Employees
Here is a question buyers ask that sellers rarely think about in advance. A sophisticated buyer will ask you:
“Who on your team is for this deal? Who is against it? Who is going to try to kill the deal?”
A lot of sellers respond — I never really thought of that. That is the wrong answer even if it is honest. The right answer is a classified roster showing you know exactly who is in Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3, plus the mitigation strategy for each Group 3 member.
Sophisticated buyers do this analysis intuitively when they are looking at target companies. Big-sale professionals develop the ability to scan a management team and identify the influencer, the resistor, and the saboteur within the first meeting. Doing your own analysis before the buyer does theirs is basic preparation — and demonstrates the operational sophistication buyers reward with higher valuations.
Person 3.5 — The Saboteur Not Even In The Room
Here is the concept most owners miss entirely. Person 3.5 is a saboteur who is not on your team but influences your team.
Common Person 3.5 profiles:
- A friend of the family who benefits from the current business structure
- A family member (spouse, adult child, sibling) whose income depends on your ownership
- A consultant whose engagement will end when the deal closes
- A vendor whose margin depends on your continued involvement
- An advisor whose fees stop when the sale completes
- A business associate whose reciprocal relationship depends on your ownership
Person 3.5 is not in the meeting. They do not appear on the org chart. But they influence Group 2 or Group 3 members through hallway conversations, phone calls, family dinners, and social interactions outside of business hours. When a Group 2 member suddenly becomes a Group 3 saboteur for no apparent reason, look for Person 3.5 in their life.
The saboteur audit is incomplete without a Person 3.5 layer. For each Group 2 or Group 3 team member, ask — who influences this person outside of work, and what are their incentives?
If you are looking to sell your business in the next zero to thirty-six months, doing at least $2 million a year in revenue with a ten percent profit margin, the deal hotline is 888-DEAL-919. One of the team members will get back to you. No deal is too big.
The Framing — Not Sky-Is-Falling, Just Real
The three types of employees framework is not meant to be negative. Not meant to signal that the sky is falling and everything will be a problem. Most deals get done. Most teams contain a majority of Group 1 members. Most Group 2 members can be brought to Group 1 with the right conversation.
But knowing the three buckets — who is on the team, who is not really on board, and who is completely against it and going to sabotage your deal — is the specific analysis that separates owners who close deals from owners who watch deals die. The framework takes 30 minutes to apply to your roster. The alternative is finding out during due diligence which team members were actually working against you.
Related cluster reading: who will sabotage your exit, how accountability can help you grow, scale, or exit, how to identify key personnel risk before selling your business.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the three types of employees you find when doing a deal?
Group 1 supports the deal and is willing to do extra work (“Let’s freaking go”). Group 2 objects vocally but is willing to comply with proper handling. Group 3 agrees publicly and sabotages privately — the most dangerous group. Recognizing which team members fall into which group before you announce the deal determines whether the deal closes.
How do you identify Group 1 employees who support the deal?
Group 1 language is enthusiastic and acknowledges the cost: “Yes, let’s freaking go. Let’s get this deal done. We are going to have to put in work and effort — but we are more than willing.” Group 1 members knowingly accept the extra responsibilities and still say yes. Their willingness to name the cost is what distinguishes them from performative agreement.
What are the signs of Group 2 employees who vocally object?
Group 2 states objections openly: “I don’t really like this deal. I just want to go on the record. I really don’t want to be part of it.” They have a reason, and that reason is voiced. Group 2 is not dangerous yet — they are giving you the chance to address the concern. But if their concerns are not addressed, Group 2 becomes Group 3.
How do Group 2 employees become Group 3 saboteurs?
By having their concerns dismissed or ignored. When a Group 2 member voices a legitimate objection and the owner does not engage with it seriously, the Group 2 member concludes that public objection is useless. They move to private sabotage as the only remaining influence mechanism. The transition happens within weeks of the initial objection being dismissed.
Who is typically in Group 3 — the deal saboteurs?
Typically one of two specific people. First, a family member with something to lose — fear of losing role, income, or family standing that depends on the current structure. Second, an employee with a cushy job who sees accountability coming. The cushy-job employee and the accountability-resistant employee are often the same person. They hang out together at minimum.
What is the dual-verification protocol for team commitment?
A two-stage validation. Stage one: group meeting where you say “Speak now or forever hold your peace.” Stage two: one-on-one meetings where you say “In the meeting you said you were on board. I want to make sure that is accurate. Do I have 100% of your support?” The gap between the group answer and the private answer reveals Group 3 members.
What is “Person 3.5” in deal sabotage?
A saboteur who is not on your team but influences your team. Common profiles: friend of the family, spouse or adult child whose income depends on your ownership, consultant whose engagement ends when the deal closes, vendor whose margin depends on your involvement, advisor whose fees stop at sale. Person 3.5 is not in the meeting but shapes Group 2 and Group 3 members through outside-of-work influence.
Why is asking twice about deal support not ridiculous?
Because you have a lot on the line — potentially the largest transaction of your business life. People say different things in private than in groups. Confirming twice solidifies direction, reveals Group 3 members through the gap between group and private answers, and documents commitment legally. The extra hour is one of the highest-return time investments in pre-announcement.
When should you require an NDA before discussing the deal?
Always for exit deals. Have a legal conversation with an attorney about whether NDAs need to be in place before you discuss the exit with any team member. The attorney is going to say heck yes. Most buyers want this anyway — they want to make sure everything has been covered through proper legal channels. Get NDAs signed before the deal conversation happens.
What buyer-side question about your team should you be ready for?
Sophisticated buyers will ask: “Who on your team is for this deal? Who is against it? Who is going to try to kill the deal?” The wrong answer is “I never really thought of that.” The right answer is a classified roster showing you know exactly who is in Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3, plus mitigation strategies for each Group 3 member.
Full Transcript
If you are in any type of deal as a business owner, entrepreneur, offer owner, or even a practitioner, there are three groups of people you really do want to identify when it comes to doing a deal. Because you are going to find out — some people do not want what you want. What does this have to do with your growth, your scale, your exit, or even deal-making? This is a fantastic question. I am Scott Sylvan Bell coming to you live from Sacramento, California on a perfect day to talk about deals, opportunities, growth, and a fantastic day to talk about you.
When you are looking at any type of deal and any type of size, the more significant the deal is, the more this conversation is going to matter. Let us start with Group 1. Group 1 are the people who are on board. They are like — yes, let’s freaking go. Let’s get this deal done. It is going to give us opportunity. It is going to help the business. It is going to make magic happen. It is going to make our lives easier. We are going to have to put in work and effort, but we are more than willing to do it. Yes, we are 100% on this deal. Let’s freaking go.
Group 2 is people who are not on board. For whatever reason, they do not want the deal. They may be vocal about it. They may have to put in extra work. They may have to put in extra effort. They may have to change their schedule. They may have to change part of their life. They have a reason, and that reason is typically voiced. They are going to come to you and say — I do not really like this deal. I just want to go on the record. I really do not want to be a part of it. This is usually with bigger deals, smaller deals, whatever. It is just part of the work for the most part. When you start getting into big projects, people start thinking not just in terms of okay, I have got my work to do today, but I also now have this work to do today.
What ends up happening with them is if they are not taken care of, they go into role number 3. Role 3 becomes super dangerous — the role of a saboteur. They create sabotage. When you are looking at putting a project together, when you are looking at a deal together, one of the things to do is take a look at your roster. Who is in your management team? When you go through and start asking questions, who is going to be in Group 1 — on board, know it is going to be more work, going to have more responsibilities, going to have to do more things. You have Group 2 people who are vocally against it — okay, I do not like it, but I am willing to do it. Then Group 3 is I do not like it, I am not going to do it, and I am going to go so far as to go behind your back and create problems so this deal never, ever, ever happens.
What is going to surprise you is who is in Group 3. From my experience — does not mean this is every single time — but from my experience, it is typically a family member with something to lose, or an employee with a cushy job. They look and go — I see the writing on the walls. I get the accountability conversation. When people start seeing accountability enter into the office and the building, they start dragging their feet. They start trying to make sure the processes do not go through. The accountability person is probably going to be the same person who sabotages the deal. They typically go hand in hand. If not, they hang out together.
Your role is to take a look and say — who is going to try to kill my deal? You may want to bring each person in individually. Have a group meeting: we are going to do this deal, we are going to do this project — speak now or forever hold your peace. Everybody has their ability to have that conversation. Then you bring everybody in one-on-one: in the meeting you said you were on board. I want to make sure that is accurate. Is there any reason we are not going to move forward on this project? Do I have 100% of your support?
Even a good question to ask in front of the team, because now you are asking it twice. You may say — Scott, that is kind of ridiculous. I do not really want to go to my management team two times and ask them the same questions. They are not infants. They are not children. Listen, you have a lot on the line. If it means taking an extra hour to have one-on-one conversations and a group conversation, there is nothing wrong with that. It solidifies where we are at, the direction we are going, the point we are taking.
If by chance you are on an exit and it is an exit strategy, there are legal conversations you are going to want to have with the proper people — like an attorney. Do we need to put an NDA in place? They are probably going to say heck yes. Is there a faster word than yes? Yeah, we are going to get an NDA signed before we even discuss this. Most buyers want that anyway. They want to make sure everything has been covered and taken care of through the proper legal channels.
When you are on the opposing side, one of the questions is — who on your team is for this, against it, and who is going to try to kill the deal? A lot of times, sellers say — I never really thought of that. A lot of times, if you are in big sales, you start doing this intuitively. You start looking for the person with influence. Sometimes it is not even a person in the room. Person 3.5 may be a friend or a family member or a consultant who is going to lose their cushy job.
It is not meant to be negative. It is not meant to be like the sky is falling and everything is going to be a problem. But what you do want to take a look at is those three buckets — who is on the team, who is not really on board, and who is completely against it and going to sabotage your deal, your process, or whatever options you have.
