5 ms·

Why does this crap deserve a wikipedia article? It's just a bunch of moaning that sometimes founders have too much power inside organizations that they founded

by kanox 6y ago

Why does this crap deserve a wikipedia article? It's just a bunch of moaning that sometimes founders have too much power inside organizations that they founded (imagine that).

spurdoman77 6y ago
Yeah Ive seen articles removed which had much more sensible content than this bullcrap.
growlist 6y ago
Why so hostile?
rsynnott 6y ago
I mean, I didn't know of a name for it, but... this is a known problem with some post-startups, isn't it? Like, I don't see why it _shouldn't_ have a name.
- luckylion 6y ago
  I think it could have a name, but not necessarily a Wikipedia article. And Founder's Syndrome is a bad name imho. That rather sounds like something you'd say when somebody keeps starting businesses because they can't stop being a founder and feel like they need to tackle each and every problem they encounter. What's described in the Wikipedia article is imho not specific to founders, it's about cult-like leadership and disproportionate power due to weird voting rights setups and different share types.
  - rsynnott 6y ago
    It's not _specific_ to founders, but just about all cases of it are founders (as I mention elsewhere in the thread, I think Ballmer was probably an example, but he's a bit of a special case).
    - luckylion 6y ago
      Just the other day, VW's Winterkorn was accused of most of those things as well (well, maybe not of being super charismatic, but I don't think Ballmer would be considered that either, nobody would've followed him into the woods for a suicide pact). My impression is that we'll notice it more in startups because they don't have the large and reliable power structure in place where these things don't become public, and their very nature of high-risk companies that are looking to go public puts them both more at risk for failing spectacularly and in the spot light.
Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
You see, someone created an organization and then runs is as he sees fit (in fact, tries do do the best, to the limit of his abilities). Someone is displeased by the results (Oh, the horror!), and starts raging how he would improve things. This often happens when a displeased person is working in a said organization.
- chasing 6y ago
  Employees are stakeholders in a company. They have the right to express displeasure when the founder "tries do do the best, to the limit of his abilities" and nevertheless creates problems and/or demonstrates they are incapable of quality leadership as the organization grows.
  - ehnto 6y ago
    Depending on the company and employee I suppose, I think you would be giving people the wrong idea to call them a stakeholder at many companies. If a company is suffering from this Founders Syndrome, most people can only hope to see the ship stay afloat, as most people aren't going to be in a position to do anything about it.
  - spottybanana 6y ago
    Employees have the right to express displeasure, but always makes sense to think if that really helps things or just demotivates everyone. Sometimes the discontent seems to be more on personal level, eg. founder/owner is not happy with the employee, the employee is not happy with the founder but still stays at the organisation. Often it would just make more sense to leave for another company. Edit: assuming here with discontent is not constructive criticism but more like general complaining without offering reasonable solutions.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    When I got really unhappy with the way my ex-boss ran the company he founded (including many lies and false promises he never meant to keep), I have quit and started my own company. I imagine some employees have left my company, too, because they were unhappy with the way I ran things. However, I have never resorted to lies and making promises I never meant to keep.
ehnto 6y ago
I was thinking as I was reading it that it reads more like a blog post than a fact driven wikipedia article. Generalized language and some assumed knowledge. I was surprised to see all the citations.
- justinmeiners 6y ago
  > surprised to see all the citations. Mostly financial news and medium articles. If you have a predetermined view, it's easy to find evidence and sources to support. The hard things is looking at a bunch of different studies and then deciding on an interpretation.
the-dude 6y ago
Are you a founder by any chance?
diegoperini 6y ago
The article being there is not a problem if this is a real thing, which I believe sometimes it is. The problem is, the article is written in a sloppy and definitely non-neutral tone. With its current state, it reads more like a rage post. It is hard to eliminate bias from these kinds of articles but it seems the author didn't even give the effort to do so.
iancmceachern 6y ago
I think its less about "given" of "have" too much power and more about "choosing" go micro manage and not allowing your workers the space to be successful. How do I know? Worked for quite a few before finding a happy place.

by kanox 6y ago

Why does this crap deserve a wikipedia article? It's just a bunch of moaning that sometimes founders have too much power inside organizations that they founded (imagine that).

spurdoman77 6y ago

Yeah Ive seen articles removed which had much more sensible content than this bullcrap.

growlist 6y ago

Why so hostile?

rsynnott 6y ago

I mean, I didn't know of a name for it, but... this is a known problem with some post-startups, isn't it? Like, I don't see why it _shouldn't_ have a name.

luckylion 6y ago
I think it could have a name, but not necessarily a Wikipedia article. And Founder's Syndrome is a bad name imho. That rather sounds like something you'd say when somebody keeps starting businesses because they can't stop being a founder and feel like they need to tackle each and every problem they encounter. What's described in the Wikipedia article is imho not specific to founders, it's about cult-like leadership and disproportionate power due to weird voting rights setups and different share types.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  It's not _specific_ to founders, but just about all cases of it are founders (as I mention elsewhere in the thread, I think Ballmer was probably an example, but he's a bit of a special case).
  - luckylion 6y ago
    Just the other day, VW's Winterkorn was accused of most of those things as well (well, maybe not of being super charismatic, but I don't think Ballmer would be considered that either, nobody would've followed him into the woods for a suicide pact). My impression is that we'll notice it more in startups because they don't have the large and reliable power structure in place where these things don't become public, and their very nature of high-risk companies that are looking to go public puts them both more at risk for failing spectacularly and in the spot light.

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago

You see, someone created an organization and then runs is as he sees fit (in fact, tries do do the best, to the limit of his abilities). Someone is displeased by the results (Oh, the horror!), and starts raging how he would improve things. This often happens when a displeased person is working in a said organization.

chasing 6y ago
Employees are stakeholders in a company. They have the right to express displeasure when the founder "tries do do the best, to the limit of his abilities" and nevertheless creates problems and/or demonstrates they are incapable of quality leadership as the organization grows.
- ehnto 6y ago
  Depending on the company and employee I suppose, I think you would be giving people the wrong idea to call them a stakeholder at many companies. If a company is suffering from this Founders Syndrome, most people can only hope to see the ship stay afloat, as most people aren't going to be in a position to do anything about it.
- spottybanana 6y ago
  Employees have the right to express displeasure, but always makes sense to think if that really helps things or just demotivates everyone. Sometimes the discontent seems to be more on personal level, eg. founder/owner is not happy with the employee, the employee is not happy with the founder but still stays at the organisation. Often it would just make more sense to leave for another company. Edit: assuming here with discontent is not constructive criticism but more like general complaining without offering reasonable solutions.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  When I got really unhappy with the way my ex-boss ran the company he founded (including many lies and false promises he never meant to keep), I have quit and started my own company. I imagine some employees have left my company, too, because they were unhappy with the way I ran things. However, I have never resorted to lies and making promises I never meant to keep.

ehnto 6y ago

I was thinking as I was reading it that it reads more like a blog post than a fact driven wikipedia article. Generalized language and some assumed knowledge. I was surprised to see all the citations.

justinmeiners 6y ago
> surprised to see all the citations. Mostly financial news and medium articles. If you have a predetermined view, it's easy to find evidence and sources to support. The hard things is looking at a bunch of different studies and then deciding on an interpretation.

the-dude 6y ago

Are you a founder by any chance?

diegoperini 6y ago

The article being there is not a problem if this is a real thing, which I believe sometimes it is. The problem is, the article is written in a sloppy and definitely non-neutral tone. With its current state, it reads more like a rage post. It is hard to eliminate bias from these kinds of articles but it seems the author didn't even give the effort to do so.

iancmceachern 6y ago

I think its less about "given" of "have" too much power and more about "choosing" go micro manage and not allowing your workers the space to be successful. How do I know? Worked for quite a few before finding a happy place.