Live data from Hacker News

Why "founder mode" is a rebranding for micromanaging, top-down leaders

news.paolo.pm

11–20 of 30 posts

Re: Why "founder mode" is a rebranding for micromanaging, top-down leaders

#11
Multiple things can be true at the same time.

1. Many companies have too many layers of management, with too much abstraction from the actual product, which kills drive and focus.

2. Micromanagement and disempowerment of employees is bad management and ultimately harmful.

In practice these two facts often exist in tension, but they are not inherently contradictory, and it's possible to thread the needle.

Re: Why "founder mode" is a rebranding for micromanaging, top-down leaders

#12
This article is disingenuous all the way down:

"“founder mode” paradigm, a valid alternative to “skillful liars”

"I guess anyone can see how a spreadsheet with yellow, red and green statuses is nothing groundbreaking really!"

"Graham goes as far as positioning this as an entirely new paradigm, literally believing he's discovered something that nobody knew existed before."

"this approach is well known to business schools as poor, dysfunctional management, and the alternative to that is of course good management."

I could keep going. I am happy to read arguments for/against Founder Mode, but I want to read an actual argument, not ad hominem dressed in smarty pants.

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says"

Re: Why "founder mode" is a rebranding for micromanaging, top-down leaders

#14
I'll share a different perspective to this whole founder mode debate: my instinct is that "founder mode" is a useless phrase and founders can be equal parts helpful or detrimental. The leaders who we would generally uphold as being highly successful founders who built respectable companies didn't necessarily do so through something intrinsic to being a founder, but rather by deeply _giving a shit_ about the products they build and the customer experiences of those products.

It follows that founders (or employees who were early enough to have a founding mentality), often, tend to care more about their products and services than anyone else will and this can lead to centralized decision making being highly effective. This is the case for Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Howard Schultz, Brian Chesky, and Elon Musk (please set aside any recent personal opinions of him).

It also follows that "manager" CEOs and senior leaders are often hired into a role with different incentives that relate far less to them caring about the product, customer, or business, and more to the movement of specific metrics. In these cases, centralized decision making can lead to deterioration of a product experience to the point of irrelevance. This list might include Scott Thompson (Yahoo), Dennis Muilenburg (Boeing), etc.

I don't believe it is anything inherent to a "founder" or "manager." Simply put: centralized decision making can be effective in an organization where the centralized decision maker has the insights and is close enough to the customer and market to make good decisions. It can be massively detrimental if the person is detached from the customer and market.

It is just the case that a founder happens to be much more likely to be close to the customer and the market than a hired leader, and likely has much more of a desire to be so.

This might be wrong, but it has tracked in my career so far. I've seen great managers, horrible managers, great founders, and horrible founders. The only thing that has been consistent is that the great ones are _far_ more likely to deeply understand the customer they serve and the product they build than the bad ones.

Re: Why "founder mode" is a rebranding for micromanaging, top-down leaders

#15

I'll share a different perspective to this whole founder mode debate: my instinct is that "founder mode" is a useless phrase and founders can be equal parts helpful or detrimental. The leaders who we would generally uphold as being highly successful founders who built respectable companies didn't necessarily do so through something intrinsic to being a founder, but rather by deeply _giving a shit_ about the products…

Musk "was quite successful in the earlier days of Tesla". lol as if he's still not kicking butt. Did you see his company plucked a rocket the size of the Statue of Liberty out of the air?

Re: Why "founder mode" is a rebranding for micromanaging, top-down leaders

#16

I'll share a different perspective to this whole founder mode debate: my instinct is that "founder mode" is a useless phrase and founders can be equal parts helpful or detrimental. The leaders who we would generally uphold as being highly successful founders who built respectable companies didn't necessarily do so through something intrinsic to being a founder, but rather by deeply _giving a shit_ about the products…

Musk "was quite successful in the earlier days of Tesla". lol as if he's still not kicking butt. Did you see his company plucked a rocket the size of the Statue of Liberty out of the air?

I don't necessarily disagree. The comment was intended to avoid a flame war of someone arguing about his recent (personal) antics, not company performance. I updated the parenthetical to reflect this.

Re: Why "founder mode" is a rebranding for micromanaging, top-down leaders

#18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk "was quite successful in the earlier days of Tesla". lol as if he's still not kicking butt. Did you see his company plucked a rocket the size of the Statue of Liberty out of the air?

I don't necessarily disagree. The comment was intended to avoid a flame war of someone arguing about his recent (personal) antics, not company performance. I updated the parenthetical to reflect this.

haha got it- sorry for trying to start the flame war anyways!

Re: Why "founder mode" is a rebranding for micromanaging, top-down leaders

#19
"Moreover, even for those who would like to rightfully consider Airbnb results positive, there’s a huge price on culture companies managed this way have to pay. We can get a glimpse from a few Glassdoor reviews I found, all subsequent to Chesky’s new approach..."

Glassdoor reviews are a poor measure of a company's culture.

Re: Why "founder mode" is a rebranding for micromanaging, top-down leaders

#20
I guess this is the first time I’ve seen “founder mode” as a new thing, apparently I’m out of touch. But from what I’ve read and how it matches up with my experience with horrible management in the past, driving down micromanagement and all that, all it is is a fear response. Fear about not having control, fear about not having hired correctly, fear the you’re not as influential as you’ve deluded yourself to be, and on and on, that’s all I can see here. This guy is so wrapped up with having to dictate everything he has to make it miserable for the people that should actually be doing stuff, you know, the people he hired.

If you want to have impact, do less! Have a clear vision above all, be able to articulate it, rally people behind you, micromanagement “founder mode” is just a bandaid over poor fearful, leadership. Sure, micromanage your startup of five people, after that you should have the discretion to hire people to carry out your vision. Otherwise, just get out, you’ll just make your life and everyone else’s less miserable otherwise.

Post reply on HN