Let's just be careful: whether it's Steve Jobs or Paul Graham or Socrates, philosophy devolves to sophistry when the metric is whether you can convince people.

Let's just be careful: whether it's Steve Jobs or Paul Graham or Socrates, philosophy devolves to sophistry when the metric is whether you can convince people. The metric has to be whether you're right, in this case for the business. The solution here, like most dialectics, is to do both: hire people who are not just smart, but who actually care for their part of the business in a way founders wish they could do if they had the time, intelligence, and grace. As a non-founder, I'm so glad when the founders hire someone who cares enough to get their job done that I can rely on them and focus on my job -- and I aspire to be someone who others are glad to rely on. But from even two steps away, that is indistinguishable from the principles of division of labor and the practice of mutual political respect that strangle companies in bureaucracy. But the two situations are night and day, and obvious to those who live it. So I think the difference is not whether the founder can reach down a level, but whether they -- or the COO or whoever plays this role -- can arrive on any scene and quickly tell if it's BS. Then when everyone knows BS is not safe and that commitment is respected, they'll find the courage to not play games. So then a company runs well not because the founder is good, but because people understand and buy into what good means for the business.