ExpertsFMAlex Behring and Daniel Schwartz - Inside 3G Capital - [Invest Like the Best, EP.458]
Invest Like the Best with Patrick O'Shaughnessy · February 10, 2026
5 Selected Lessons:
case · 2 framework · 2 heuristic · 1
Manage the people, centralize the what, decentralize the how
Source
Invest Like the Best with Patrick O'Shaughnessy — Alex Behring and Daniel Schwartz - Inside 3G Capital - [Invest Like the Best, EP.458] (February 10, 2026) · at 26:36 ▸ · at 29:48 ▸
When this applies
when leading any organization and deciding what to control centrally versus delegate
The takeaway
Centralize alignment on objectives; decentralize the execution methods to the people closest to the problem, provided they are incentivized as owners.
Why it works
Agreeing centrally on goals ensures organizational alignment, while giving teams autonomy over methods lets capable people solve problems using local knowledge, increasing both engagement and solution quality; this requires an ownership culture where leaders act as shareholders.
One level up
Control the few things that must be uniform (goals, incentives); release control over everything else to unlock local knowledge and ownership.
Where it stops holding
This stops working when teams lack the skill or incentive alignment to be trusted with autonomy, or when goals themselves are unclear/contested at the top.
Detail
procedure:
- Build a culture of ownership starting with leaders acting as true shareholders
- Align at the top on what the organization is trying to accomplish
- Give teams freedom to decide how to accomplish it
- Tolerate mistakes made in pursuit of the agreed goals as learning, not failure
- Run benchmarking/zero-based budgeting exercises across regions/categories to find inefficiencies once ownership culture is in place
benchmarks: {}
rationale: Manage the people, not the business. Centralize the what, not the how.
In their words
Things like manage the people, not the business. Centralize the what, not the how.
Bet early on young talent, but surround them with experienced mentors
Source
Invest Like the Best with Patrick O'Shaughnessy — Alex Behring and Daniel Schwartz - Inside 3G Capital - [Invest Like the Best, EP.458] (February 10, 2026) · at 42:01 ▸ · at 45:45 ▸ · at 1:33:43 ▸
When this applies
when deciding whether to promote a young, unproven but promising person into a high-stakes leadership role
The takeaway
Combine early high-stakes bets on talent with deliberate scaffolding of experienced mentors and team members, since the bet alone does not guarantee success — the support structure does.
Why it works
Giving someone major responsibility far earlier than typical attracts top talent (who crave a shot and ownership), but the probability of success rises sharply if the organization surrounds them with experienced operators who've done the job before, rather than leaving them isolated.
One level up
Opportunity without support is a gamble; opportunity with support is a system for compounding talent.
Where it stops holding
This stops working when there's no credible bench of experienced mentors to scaffold the young leader, turning the bet into a pure gamble.
Detail
procedure:
- Identify genuinely talented young people via wide networking (word of mouth, cold emails, resume books)
- Give them major roles earlier than peers elsewhere would
- Surround them with prior operators from earlier deals (e.g., brewery, railroad alumni) as mentors/board support
- Accept that not every risky promotion will succeed, but structure maximizes the odds
- Require years of direct working relationship/trust first (e.g., Daniel worked for Alex six years before being made CFO)
benchmarks: {"Daniel CEO age":32,"Josh CFO age":26,"Alex railroad CEO age":30}
rationale: Nothing guarantees your success and you have to be prepared... some of these risky promotions won't succeed. But you have to maximize the chances that they work.
In their words
that sort of that combination of things sets you up for success.
Technology should improve, not disrupt, the core physical product
Source
Invest Like the Best with Patrick O'Shaughnessy — Alex Behring and Daniel Schwartz - Inside 3G Capital - [Invest Like the Best, EP.458] (February 10, 2026) · at 1:23:26 ▸
When this applies
when deciding how much technology exposure/risk to accept in a business with a durable physical core product
The takeaway
Seek out businesses where technology functions as a moat-reinforcing tool (better customer experience, operations) rather than a substitute for the core product, and invest in exploiting that tech upside while avoiding categories where tech is an existential substitute.
Why it works
Businesses anchored in durable physical consumption habits (eating, wearing shoes, covering windows) are not displaced by technology, but technology can meaningfully improve their economics (e.g., Domino's building a tech/delivery platform to take share) — so the right posture is to embrace tech as an enhancer, not fear it as a disruptor.
One level up
Classify your technology exposure by whether it threatens your core value proposition or merely improves execution of it — the strategic response differs completely.
Where it stops holding
This stops working when the core physical product itself becomes substitutable by a digital alternative (which the speakers imply doesn't apply to food, footwear, or window coverings, but could apply elsewhere).
Detail
rule: Favor businesses where tech can be layered on to improve execution (e-commerce, delivery platforms, smart automation) without threatening the core product's necessity
threshold: If a new technology could fully 'remove' the core product (not just improve its delivery), treat that category as high disruption risk and avoid
rationale: We like types of businesses that could be improved by technology... just not the businesses that a new technology is going to completely change and remove. You're going to wear sneakers tomorrow, regardless of whatever technology that there is.
In their words
We like businesses, as we mentioned before, well-moted businesses where technology can help improve the business, not disrupt the business.
Managing by walking around on the Brazilian railroad
Source
Invest Like the Best with Patrick O'Shaughnessy — Alex Behring and Daniel Schwartz - Inside 3G Capital - [Invest Like the Best, EP.458] (February 10, 2026) · at 23:58 ▸
When this applies
when taking over an operationally broken business where frontline workers hold the knowledge to fix it
The takeaway
When facing an operations-bound business, go to where the work happens, fix cheap frictions for frontline workers, and give them visibility/ranking to channel their pride into performance.
Why it works
Engaging directly with frontline workers (engineers), fixing small but meaningful quality-of-life issues, and introducing transparent performance ranking unlocks latent operational knowledge and pride that drives large efficiency gains.
One level up
The people closest to the work usually already know the solutions; leadership's job is to engage them, not to manage from a distance via reports.
Where it stops holding
This stops working when the bottleneck is capital-intensive (needs new assets you can't afford) rather than engagement/morale, or when frontline workers lack real operational knowledge to contribute.
Detail
situation: The railroad couldn't service customer demand due to poor operations; the company lacked money for new locomotives.
decision: Alex got close to engineers, fixed cheap issues (uncomfortable chairs, cold cabins, sleeping quarters), introduced on-board computers ranking fuel and safety performance nationwide.
outcome: Much higher asset turns, driven by engaged, proud frontline workers who had the ideas but needed engagement.
lesson: Managing by walking around and engaging frontline staff, rather than managing via PowerPoint reports, was the biggest value creation driver.
In their words
That taught me a little bit about managing by walking around and not sitting in an office and getting Fed information through PowerPoint.
Persistent outreach despite repeated rejection: Tim Hortons courtship
Source
Invest Like the Best with Patrick O'Shaughnessy — Alex Behring and Daniel Schwartz - Inside 3G Capital - [Invest Like the Best, EP.458] (February 10, 2026) · at 34:24 ▸ · at 37:33 ▸
When this applies
when pursuing any high-value counterparty who rejects your first approach(es) but the opportunity remains worth pursuing
The takeaway
Treat early rejections in high-value pursuits as data to improve your offer and approach, not as final verdicts, if both sides are not emotionally finished with the conversation.
Why it works
A terse rejection does not necessarily reflect a closed door; improving the offer and persistently seeking new channels of engagement can reopen dialogue that a single rebuff would otherwise foreclose.
One level up
Persistence paired with iteration (not persistence alone) converts 'no' into 'let's talk' in relationship-gated high-value deals.
Where it stops holding
This stops working when the counterparty has definitively and credibly closed the door (e.g., signed with someone else, or repeated unambiguous refusal with no equivocation), in which case continued pursuit is wasted effort or even damaging.
Detail
situation: After a great initial dinner and an open CEO, 3G submitted a proposal met with weeks of silence then a two-line rejection; a revised offer was rejected again within a day.
decision: Rather than walking away, the team found alternate ways to open dialogue, eventually meeting with the CEO and CFO directly.
outcome: A revised offer was eventually enticing enough to move into due diligence and ultimately close the deal.
lesson: Neither party being shy or giving up allowed renewed engagement after what looked like firm rejections.
In their words
The good news is, neither of us are shy and both of us are persistent. So now are we really scrambling and trying to find every possible way of engaging in a dialogue.