The "Founder Mode" Debate
In The News
NOTE: I’ve opened this post up to all subscribers - normally this Friday post is only for paid subscribers. I think this topic is important and I wanted to share with everyone. Plus, I want free subscribers to see what they are missing!
On my list of things to do some day is visit the Grand Canyon. Others have written so well on how its great expanse is awe-inspiring. To look at something that big moves the soul.
I know something bigger that isn’t nearly as awe-inspiring - the ego of tech leaders and tech bros.
If you haven’t heard, there has been discussion about a web piece written by Paul Graham, a Silicon Valley writer and investor. He discusses the difference between Founder Mode and Manager Mode and clearly states how Founder Mode is a better fit for tech start-ups that are ready to scale.
The fact that it is getting attention as an intellectual thought worthy of discussion is silly. Read his ideas. You won’t be smarter after reading them, but it is enlightening as to the mindset of tech bros.
TL;DR - The Founder Mode Argument
The argument goes like this. Founders are told that to scale a business, they have to hire professional managers. This is a lie, and professional managers are fakers whose only skill appears to be gaslighting founders out of their money and destroying their company.
In fairness, he does indicate that Manager Mode can work well for established companies and doesn’t completely dismiss it, even with the crass attack on professional managers.
The Founder Mode Argument Flaws
The argument itself is filled with so many flaws that I can’t possibly address them all. Let me quickly list and address a few before I get to the main one.
Founders have orgs fail because of this bad advice and execution from managers. It uses one case and subtly points out there are more (although offers no evidence). Also ignores that some orgs are driven into the ground by the founders.
Professional managers run those tech companies to the ground. I’d bet that Meta and Google would beg to differ. Many start-ups have hired good professional managers and gone on to great success.
The advice is to hire professionals and let them do their job. He rewords that to “hire professional fakers and let them drive the company into the ground”. The implication is that all professional managers are fakers. To which I respond with a very forceful middle finger. Giving him the benefit of the doubt and saying only some are fakers, maybe that says more about the founders and their inability to hire good people.
Refers to C-level people as some of the “most skillful liars in the world”. Of course, no one would ever accuse tech founders of that. I mean, its not like Elizabeth Holmes and Sam Bankman-Fried are in jail for lying.
The Biggest Flaw - Which Actually Stumbles on the Solution
The biggest flaw in the argument? That it is a binary choice - Founder Mode or Manager Mode. This just isn’t true. The way organizations are run - start-ups, established companies, non-profits, etc. - varies and is on a rather large spectrum. To indicate it is one or the other is simply false.
If he would have positioned the argument in a slightly different way, I would have agreed with him. The problem isn’t that the Founder Mode works and should be followed, it is that current management practices are out of date.
Management needs to be fixed - not replaced with Founder Mode.
Mr. Graham has the false belief that management just doesn’t work. In reality, bad management doesn’t work; good management works just fine for all types of organizations. Unfortunately, we have too many people who are bad at managing because they haven’t evolved with more effective and changed practices.
The Skip Level Meeting
The article uses as an example the idea of the skip level meeting. He argues - correctly - that the skip level meeting can have a huge positive impact on an organization and that too many organizations are incapable of having these types of meetings. That isn’t a principle of management, that is the behavior of bad managers.
As I’ve talked about many times in these pages, great managers hold regular one-on-ones with employees to build relationships and get to know them. I’ve also stressed that managers should put employees who have great ideas in positions to test and share those ideas - including with managers above them. The VP shouldn’t have to schedule a meeting with an individual contributor to find out what they are thinking, the manager should be funneling up that information and putting the individual contributor in front of the VP.
His concept isn’t new, and it wasn’t even new when Steve Jobs was doing it. Management has been using the concept for as long as organizations have existed. The problem was that they only did so in relation to the customer, not the employee. There are countless stories of executives who spend time on the floor and with customers. Disney was famous that every executive had to spend time in a character costume (not sure if they still do that). The issue is that organizations view employees as different than customers. Customers get nurtured - employees get used.
Conclusion
I understand that topics like these are nuanced conversations. Positioning the argument as binary is a common technique. But stating it as a simple “one good the other bad” discussion is wrong. Worse, it is insulting to the many great managers out there who have done amazing work.
It is why I do what I do - founders deserve great managers helping them, great managers deserve to be recognized for the work they do, and employees deserve to be treated with respect by great managers.
Great companies do all three.
Instead of pitting the sides against each other, let’s recognize the value each provides and work together to make everyone successful. Which means getting rid of some old mindsets and old ways of working.