Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What is "founder mode"?

tomblomfield.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 68 posts

Re: What is "founder mode"?

#31

Post by robenkleene »

carabiner wrote: post #26
swyx wrote: post #7

something jeff bezos always warned against was the "narrative fallacy" - for one to believe so strongly in a compelling story that they dont stop for data. here's the stock charts of the founder of founder mode vs a professional manager mode guy :) https://x.com/ericnewcomer/status/1830998969490526423 just a fun reminder not to take everything as gospel. to engage more substantively with TFA: > I think the general pa…

Bezos also said, "When the anecdotes disagree with the data, it's usually the anecdotes that are right"

The end of that quote is "there is something wrong with the way that you are measuring your data". Which changes the meaning of the quote (without it, it's "value anecdotes over data", with it, it's "use inconsistencies with anecdotes to identify problems with data".

Re: What is "founder mode"?

#32

Post by lotsofpulp »

alphakappa wrote: post #14
extr wrote: post #11

Feels like I am taking crazy pills when I read about this stuff. Like 1500 words that boil down to "make sure you're paying attention to whether or not people are doing a good job".

It's also crazy that people are buying into the idea of 'Founder Mode' when Airbnb is one of the companies that is very much riding on the moat it created a while back while not doing anything much that can even remotely be called customer-obsessive (which is the lesson they could really learn from Steve Jobs)

Airbnb being customer obsessive would involve much higher labor expenses and liability, which would be counter to the goal of its investors (especially investors from pre-IPO days).

The goal is to make a business out of the higher margin parts that scale easily, and leave the lower margin customer-obsessive parts to others.

Re: What is "founder mode"?

#33

Post by extr »

tptacek wrote: post #29
extr wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked in startups a long time myself. Personally I've never seen this problem, feels like it's advice literally specifically for Chesky or maybe a founders at a couple dozen other unicorns. In my experience it's a way more common problem in the other direction. Founder can't let go of the details and is mucking about in everyone's work. Or have literally just become bored with the company and can't even be both…

Both things are true: there are founders who lose Github merge privileges and start meddling because they haven't defined a long-term job for themselves, and there are most definitely pasteurized processed business units that get hired and run the exact same performative playbook at startup after startup. It's not an either-or thing.

I'm not saying that both don't exist, I'm just saying PG's advice is so narrowly applicable as to be effectively "bad advice" for most people reading it.

Re: What is "founder mode"?

#34

Post by cynicalpeace »

Programmers love to name things, and then argue about the name.

For me, "founder mode" just means being extremely motivated to go "harder, better, faster, stronger" (ala Daft Punk and Kanye).

You don't need to be a founder to be motivated and just because you're a founder doesn't mean you're motivated. But the two nicely line up.

Calling it founder mode has obviously been a great way to get nerds to argue about it, so good on pg.

Re: What is "founder mode"?

#35

Post by tptacek »

extr wrote: post #33
tptacek wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both things are true: there are founders who lose Github merge privileges and start meddling because they haven't defined a long-term job for themselves, and there are most definitely pasteurized processed business units that get hired and run the exact same performative playbook at startup after startup. It's not an either-or thing.

I'm not saying that both don't exist, I'm just saying PG's advice is so narrowly applicable as to be effectively "bad advice" for most people reading it.

As this article points out: Graham's article has probably been misconstrued, and is best read as "this is something you should consider and pay attention to", and not a directive for everyone to go "be in founder mode". But to be clear: I also don't think Graham's post is especially good, though I think the issue he's engaging with is important and widely slept on.

Re: What is "founder mode"?

#36

Post by notahacker »

debit-freak wrote: post #21
notahacker wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the most damning comment of all on "founder mode" came not from the critics but from a LinkedIn post giving Brian Chesky apparently sincere praise for purportedly examplifying it. Apparently AirBNB had completely screwed up customer support responses to a fellow founder to the extent they'd blocked her, but as she was a member of the YC alumni network , a quick message and Brian resolved her in a few minutes,…

The behavior you've described seems deeply dysfunctional but for reasons that are entirely separate from how the term "founder mode" has gained a life of its own. "Founder mode" is being weaponized to critique people for entering a market much more competitive and dry of opportunity than it was thirty years ago Without acknowledging any change in the market the article at hand seems to be just a person belching compl…

Comparisons with the big internet successes of 25-30 years ago are pretty wild anyway, on the basis that Google is pretty much the poster child for tech founders letting a professional manager install a hierarchy to do the running-big-company stuff, and Pierre Omidyar not only left day to day management as soon as eBay floated but also made a point of moving out the Valley and portraying himself as a philanthropist rather than a business leader.

The original essay felt more like scrabbling around for a reason why founders felt their companies were less effective with more levels of hierarchy whilst somehow missing the essential truth that managing a team of 1000 is harder than managing a team of 15 no matter how you do it. I'm just here for all the wild takes on founder greatness and founder obligation that came with it!

Re: What is "founder mode"?

#37

Post by tempodox »

cynicalpeace wrote: post #34

Programmers love to name things, and then argue about the name. For me, "founder mode" just means being extremely motivated to go "harder, better, faster, stronger" (ala Daft Punk and Kanye). You don't need to be a founder to be motivated and just because you're a founder doesn't mean you're motivated. But the two nicely line up. Calling it founder mode has obviously been a great way to get nerds to argue about it, s…

Yep, the nerd sniping worked, and besides there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Re: What is "founder mode"?

#38

Post by settsu »

Aurornis wrote: post #25
settsu wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lowest productivity period of my career, for the entire company "Productivity" is a nebulous concept in knowledge work. So unless you're referring to a factory with a very concrete, measurable output, this isn't particularly meaningful term. How was the quality and employee satisfaction (as shown by solicited feedback or subjective anecdotes, plus attrition/turnover, etc.)?

It was low productivity as in we didn’t really accomplish anything. Teams couldn’t figure out what to build because it was forbidden for managers to direct them. Happiness was down too because everyone just wanted to work, but we had these obscure rules about who could decide what was worked on (not managers) that turned into roadblocks to getting anything done across teams. This wasn’t a case where “productivity” wa…

Oof, certainly sounds like a miserable train wreck.

These are the sort of ideas that, at best, seem like they should be explored with an isolated R&D approach, or simply left to academics.

And, if they are executed realtime with a companies mainline workforce and somehow succeed, it should be clearly stated and understood that it was—like much "success"—by no small amount of sheer luck (or happenstance via uncontrolled factors, if you prefer), force of will, and patience by the team as a whole, rather than the usual narrative which is the inspired actions of single prescient individual (who will then go on to write a book and give TED Talks about an approach that absolutely cannot be applied anywhere else and does not scale.)

Re: What is "founder mode"?

#39

Post by IAmGraydon »

extr wrote: post #11

Feels like I am taking crazy pills when I read about this stuff. Like 1500 words that boil down to "make sure you're paying attention to whether or not people are doing a good job".

It's actually worse than that. It's 1500 words that boil down to "the hierarchical structure that powers the most powerful companies, organizations and governments in the world and has for hundreds of years is all bullshit. Believe me I am very smart."

It's a complete clown show, but people love to believe stories about people bucking the system, so they eat it up.

Re: What is "founder mode"?

#40

Post by pdntspa »

BurningFrog wrote: post #13
pdntspa wrote: post #8

I am glad he is calling out the C-levels for their propensity to lie and 'manage up'. This is a character trait that needs to be annihilated. We should not be filtering for what is effectively psychopathy. I have watched so many amazing and sustainable products die because someone let the MBAs in. After sitting through so much of this crap dogma in my own business school classes, I would say the vast majority of what…

I don't like it more than you do, but it exists because it works in practical reality. To replace it you must come up with something that works even better.

I disagree with this blocking tactic of "if you want to complain about it you must come up with something better"

Like, yes, let me completely redo my entire life path so I can redo one stupid argument.... I would love to, but I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth that gives me the sapce to explore these things, and I have more practical matters to attend to. Until then, we're going to be complaining to anyone that would listen.

This is why we elect representatives to handle our complaints. Except in the business world there are no representatives and the regulatory bodies are actively made toothless (by business interests), so the only prevailing doctrine is the one that allows the people at the top to steal ("capture") the most value from the process. Everyone else can just go fuck themselves, amiright? This is a system that needs to be destroyed.

Post reply on HN