How about this[0] for an "it's just a bunch of folks" hypothesis:
Some folks internalise the goals of an organisation well, and some internalise them poorly. Among domesticated animals, dogs and horses internalise their owners goals well, and cats poorly. (even in the animal world, specific individuals all have different time constants for how long you can leave them unsupervised before they get into trouble)
Most of the discussion I've skimmed on HN (including PG's original) assumes that founder mode is necessary because the external bigcorp hires are more like cats, and do what they want: pad their headcount, feather their nest, orphan their mistakes, etc.; any indication they added value at their previous job is just a slick con because the C- and V-suiters are exceptionally good at managing upward.
However, let's go back to that time constant: there's another variable here among animals, and that's how strong a reminder it takes to reset the clock. I don't think there's any horse which can be left next to bucket of grain without getting into it eventually. However, some horses can be reminded not to get into it by calling their name; other horses need a tug on a lead line; yet others pretty much need to be tied down on both sides.
A good faith hypothesis would be that the people PG was complaining about did do a good job at their previous position, and the difference is in leadership style: an engineering founder is going to be low-touch; the engineering paradigm is fire-and-forget, get a good person, tell them the problem is X, and they come back with a sol'n to X. What if (as at most bigcorps) the CEO had come up through two or three decades of sales instead? Then they will be high-touch, and constantly checking in to make sure things are moving forward[1], while being very experienced in (and sensitive to) all the ways people bullshit to cover a lack of momentum. So, in contrast to a tech founder, a sales CEO may be very effective out of getting good work out of a "Whiskey Priest" report, who has a short-time constant for staying out of trouble, but also —although they do need some attention— doesn't take much wrangling to remember to walk the line: less like cats, more like dogs who can't help but notice the squirrels, but can quickly be dissuaded from chasing them with no more than a verbal reminder.[2]
Does that make sense?
[0] caveat: I haven't read TFA or the other threads or even the ancestors here, and had been planning to discuss this with gradschoolfail in better context, but thought it might be nice to get your (tptacek) opinion as well.
[1] what is the difference between real estate heaven, and real estate hell? In heaven, there's a lively market and everyone is doing deals right and left. In hell, there's a lively market and everyone is doing deals right and left — but escrow never closes.
[2] in particular, this suggests that "founder mode" may initially show some positive effects (in that it forces the founder into a high-touch regime), but it would be possible to do even better by teaching founders to "ride herd" — rather than constantly making drastic interventions with individuals (especially other peoples' individuals!), it ought to scale better to constantly be making subtle interventions —story telling?— to keep the mob generally moving in the proper direction at the proper pace. (if this last analogy doesn't make any sense, let me know and I can easily illustrate it with a few examples from defrost's mustering video)