3 ms·

I think Paul is pointing at something I've heard described as integrated complexity, basically someone who can hold the entire business in their head and unders

I think Paul is pointing at something I've heard described as integrated complexity, basically someone who can hold the entire business in their head and understand how all the problems interact at all levels of abstractions. Not everyone can do this, but the people who can are better served if they exercise the ability because it improves alignment and accountability. When you assign a person to a problem (hr policy, infrastructure scaling, new UX capability) they will treat that problem as most important, and if then they break it down a certain way and delegate parts those people will do the same with their respective parts. Like a game of telephone eventually what's actually important and what people think is important will drift apart, and before you know it a lot of people are working and doing stuff that doesn't really matter or is even counter productive. A founder who can hold the whole business in their head and inspects the whole company at all levels continuously will spot and challenge/correct these drifts. I think it was from Creativity Inc I read that Steve Jobs would challenge engineers about things and if the engineer stood up to him and made their case and it made sense and fit into the vision Steve would commend them and give them the autonomy, at least for that decision/project, but if the engineer folded or couldn't make a case for why it was the right decision he would steamroll them. So I think founder mode is basically inspecting and challenging the company at all levels to maximize progress towards realizing a vision, and only people who are great visionaries and can also understand and judge the vision-alignment of unlimited micro decisions across many disciplines are able to operate this way.

breck 2y ago
This is a killer comment. Thank you.
lordofmoria 2y ago
Brilliant explanation - it puts into words and makes sense of some experiences I’ve had that are hard to articulate.
ahaucnx 2y ago
I agree 100%. I would really underline the ability of the founder to have this pretty unique ability to see and set the strategic direction of the startup which requires a lot of abstract thinking with the tactical and operational skills to make sure you earn money right now.
huevosabio 2y ago
This is a great explanation. It should be paired with the article. Thanks!
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
figassis 2y ago
I run a payments startup, but to ktlo, I had to do consulting work, and I’d hired a sales person to acquire and manage clients. When I realized consulting was taking too much time and focus, I ended it. It took the better part of a year to get the sales person to stop finding more clients. They didn’t get why I would end something that was generating revenue, and kept trying to talk me out of it with “this is such a great deal, it’s a quick project, pays well, etc”. Imagine this across all depts. This is how businesses lose focus, everyone thinks they just need to make their case.
YZF 2y ago
This does resonate but I don't think it's necessarily a "founder" vs. "manager" thing. I've seen at least one company that was not successful under its founders and where a hired CEO took it to the next level. That hired CEO operated closer to what you'd call "founder mode". Both these companies grew to multi-billion dollar valuations and would have likely never gotten there without hiring a CEO and both executed really well by any measure. I've also seen founders that weren't really at a level where they could "founder mode" and micromanaged things badly. Those founders are the ones that tend to apply the bad advice pg discusses and who can't really tell the difference if they've hired a good or not so good person and whether they're doing a good job or not. I totally agree that you need people with the ability to hold the big picture in their head. This can be the entire company but it can also be one product or project within the company. Trying to construct this picture out of pieces in multiple people's heads is vastly inferior and is a factor in the failure of projects/products and companies. You can't separate vision/what/how across people. What I don't think we want to take away from this is that the founder is always right or that you shouldn't hire good people and let them do their job. I don't think these two statements are accurate. The "founder" (or manager) does need to make sure that things come together, i.e. you don't have engineers building the wrong things. But you do need good people and you do need to let them do their job.
- FloorEgg 2y ago
  I agree that the labels Paul used already carry meaning that confuses what I think Paul is really trying to point out. I also agree that it's really hard to tell whether someone is capable of leading in "founder mode", and to what degree. Ray Dalio describes these people as "Shapers", and maybe using a new term is the right way to go. So putting this term to work, Paul's point is that the best way to run a company when the leader is a shaper isn't going to be the same as when the leader isn't a shaper. And to your point not all founders are Shapers and not all Shapers are founders.

breck 2y ago

This is a killer comment. Thank you.

lordofmoria 2y ago

Brilliant explanation - it puts into words and makes sense of some experiences I’ve had that are hard to articulate.

ahaucnx 2y ago

I agree 100%. I would really underline the ability of the founder to have this pretty unique ability to see and set the strategic direction of the startup which requires a lot of abstract thinking with the tactical and operational skills to make sure you earn money right now.

huevosabio 2y ago

This is a great explanation. It should be paired with the article. Thanks!

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

figassis 2y ago

I run a payments startup, but to ktlo, I had to do consulting work, and I’d hired a sales person to acquire and manage clients. When I realized consulting was taking too much time and focus, I ended it. It took the better part of a year to get the sales person to stop finding more clients. They didn’t get why I would end something that was generating revenue, and kept trying to talk me out of it with “this is such a great deal, it’s a quick project, pays well, etc”. Imagine this across all depts. This is how businesses lose focus, everyone thinks they just need to make their case.

YZF 2y ago

This does resonate but I don't think it's necessarily a "founder" vs. "manager" thing. I've seen at least one company that was not successful under its founders and where a hired CEO took it to the next level. That hired CEO operated closer to what you'd call "founder mode". Both these companies grew to multi-billion dollar valuations and would have likely never gotten there without hiring a CEO and both executed really well by any measure. I've also seen founders that weren't really at a level where they could "founder mode" and micromanaged things badly. Those founders are the ones that tend to apply the bad advice pg discusses and who can't really tell the difference if they've hired a good or not so good person and whether they're doing a good job or not. I totally agree that you need people with the ability to hold the big picture in their head. This can be the entire company but it can also be one product or project within the company. Trying to construct this picture out of pieces in multiple people's heads is vastly inferior and is a factor in the failure of projects/products and companies. You can't separate vision/what/how across people. What I don't think we want to take away from this is that the founder is always right or that you shouldn't hire good people and let them do their job. I don't think these two statements are accurate. The "founder" (or manager) does need to make sure that things come together, i.e. you don't have engineers building the wrong things. But you do need good people and you do need to let them do their job.

FloorEgg 2y ago
I agree that the labels Paul used already carry meaning that confuses what I think Paul is really trying to point out. I also agree that it's really hard to tell whether someone is capable of leading in "founder mode", and to what degree. Ray Dalio describes these people as "Shapers", and maybe using a new term is the right way to go. So putting this term to work, Paul's point is that the best way to run a company when the leader is a shaper isn't going to be the same as when the leader isn't a shaper. And to your point not all founders are Shapers and not all Shapers are founders.