I found this part amusing: "Charity [company founder] has a more intuitive, spontaneous style, often shines brightest in a crisis, is allergic to checklists". It looks like an almost inadvertent admission. In other words, the founder doesn't have the qualifications or characteristics that the underlings assume they need to be in a leadership position. I automatically become CEO, CTO, etc., by starting my own company,…
> In other words, the founder doesn't have the qualifications or characteristics that the underlings assume they need to be in a leadership position. I find this to be an odd take, given context in the article. It sounds like the writer is simply contrasting her own leadership style with her boss's, as an example of how they complement each other. Hierarchies make us uncomfortable because they challenge our egos. I'v…
I agree, that's likely the author's intention.
> Unfortunately this is an enormously unproductive attitude that will kneecap your career.
You're getting to the heart of the matter, but not in the way that you think. To avoid repeating myself, I'll refer to what I wrote in another comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36724073
> No org is a meritocracy -- but what does meritocracy even mean?
That was actually my point.
> On a final note I'll add that hierarchies get things done. Imagine working for a company that functioned as a democracy
My comment was not about how companies should be organized. That would be a misinterpretation.