Well put as always. Here's what I think is the primary alternative hypothesis. Assume that it's very hard to forecast a manager's fit and future performance. W

Well put as always. Here's what I think is the primary alternative hypothesis. Assume that it's very hard to forecast a manager's fit and future performance. With a new CEO, manager mode is the less-risky proposition. Spread risk around by delegating more. The founder has a proven track record leading the company, making founder mode usually preferable. In other words, the non-founder CEO may just be one of the professional fakers that the essay mentions as plausible subordinates. There's a ton of research literature on adverse selection of CEOs. Some of it goes back decades, so there's always the question of whether the selection process has improved over time. But there will always be people that excel at getting selected and promoted. The way this hypothesis differs from the essay's is in boiling down to actual performance. A high-performing non-founder does not need manager mode, while a low-performing founder would be better off with it.