5 ms·

The founder mode binary is way too simplistic. There are examples of successful companies all over the founder mode spectrum. What level of "founder mode" is

The founder mode binary is way too simplistic. There are examples of successful companies all over the founder mode spectrum. What level of "founder mode" is optimal depends on a lot of factors. For example: - size of the company - available people (at every level of the company) - type and number of products (is it possible to scale the work over different departments?) - qualities/personalities of the founders (trust me when I tell you, being micromanaged by a non-technical founder on a technical product is not effective) - type of business (for example; in aviation, you're going to need a lot of certification management) And you can execute poorly all over the spectrum, even when making the right choice on the level of "founder mode".

steveBK123 2y ago
Precisely. The causation direction is reversed. A lot of whether "founder mode" or whatever the opposite works has more to do with the personality of the founder. Some founders are going to fail in either mode. Successful founders have their preferred mode but aren't succeeding because of the mode. I suppose if a successful founder was in some way forced (by who?) to use the opposite of their preferred mode they'd have more difficulty, but they still are likely to succeed.
Waterluvian 2y ago
People like Paul seem to have just so much to say about startups for such a long time that at some point it starts to feel like they’re coming up with stuff to have things to keep saying. The binary state is too simplistic. But it is largely the hook to make the post attractive and successful.
- tbe-stream 2y ago
  It matches the popular sentiment among some engineers that professional management is useless or even harmful.
  - nick3443 2y ago
    I feel this but how many long term successful companies exist with no professional management folks? Beyond Valve, are there more than a few existence proofs?
    - tbe-stream 2y ago
      My impression: there are very few and for good reasons.
    - paulryanrogers 2y ago
      I'd say Valve isn't even that successful at managing. IMO they lucked into a huge market demand and did a competent job. Yet haven't managed to produce HL3 after several attempts. There are also some horror stories from former employees of a shadow hierarchy and popularity contests.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    Not exactly. Let's say I'm a founder. I am one with the vision of what we're trying to build. Can a professional manager do that better than I can? Can he/she make the calls about what's in or out of scope, or what the architecture needs to be, better than I can? No and no. So it's not that professional management is harmful, just that it's worse than the founder can do. And in a startup, that's likely true. But founders don't scale, and there comes a point in the growth of a company where it quits being true.
    - sanderjd 2y ago
      You may be right about the answer for any individual decision, but for the universe of all decisions, the answers are yes and yes, because any decision is better than no decision, and a culture where only the founder's decisions are good enough is a culture that has a massive bottleneck in its ability to make decisions.
      - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        It depends on three things: how fast the founder can make decisions, how fast the managers can make decisions, and how many total decisions there are to make. Founders often can make decisions more quickly than managers. They can also revisit decisions more quickly than managers. If the company is small, the founders can be a win - especially with higher-quality decisions.
cm277 2y ago
Agreed; I dont remember the source but I much prefer the Marines → Navy → Police continuum. Some circumstances require a highly capable team with high communication, aligned goals and motives, who can take decisions individually or at a low enough level. Some circumstances require bureaucracy, process, external and internal controls. The dumb "Founder mode" discourse hides away two things: a) scale forces you to climb that ladder towards bureaucracy and controls anyway, b) it's scope-specific. You don't want to go "Founder mode" on phone support. Or accounts payable, or probably HR. There are specific objectives, projects and also circumstances that need a more hands-on approach. And honestly a "Marines" analogy where the team is tight and authorized to make decisions, is better than some micro-managing, coke-fueled "Founder mode".
- tbe-stream 2y ago
  Indeed, often a mix of both types of processes is needed within a company. For those who are not familiar with it, check out Jeff Bezos’ 1997 Letter to Shareholders on irreversible (Type 1) vs. reversible (Type 2) decision making.
  - hiatus 2y ago
    Can you link to the letter you are referring to? The top few results of my search had no mention of reversible decision making.
    - lelanthran 2y ago
      Try searching for 1-way vs 2-way decisions
      - hiatus 2y ago
        Here is the 1997 letter to shareholders that I found: https://venturebeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/amzn_shareholder-letter-20072.pdf https://venturebeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/amzn_shar... edit: I think I found it: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1018724/000119312516530910/d168744dex991.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1018724/000119312516...
conductr 2y ago
It amazes me how much people seems to want someone like PG to just give them a single one size fits all solution to all their founder problems. It just will never exist for any particular person/company/situation. The trick is to be aware of the differing modes and when to apply them. And also, knowing these things can be useful when receiving external advise (investors, advisors, etc) as far as evaluating whether the advise would even work for your situation. Where founder mode can be felt is when a founder has a "Vision" for their company, perhaps one that is difficult for others to see. They lean into the functional areas of their company that make strides into executing that vision and bringing it to reality. This is where they probably should exercise Founder mode. Other functions of the company may be support areas or lower impact areas towards realizing the vision, or just benefit from a particular domain expertise, this is where Manager mode likely comes into play. Although, I don't like the framing of "hire smart people and let them do good work" because it makes it sound like there are no goals or guardrails to what they are doing. The founder still needs to set expectations and monitor, and this even changes over time as next years goals for this team/individual will be different than this years. In any case, hiring good people is most likely still going to be important. I think in most cases even a founder with a great vision needs to be challenged by their employees (Founder asks for X, but Engineer makes a case for Y). You don't want to squash collaboration and morale. Although, if you're lucky enough to be an exceptional Founder then your employees will tolerate it, it's probably not a good strategy to bank on though.

steveBK123 2y ago

Precisely. The causation direction is reversed. A lot of whether "founder mode" or whatever the opposite works has more to do with the personality of the founder. Some founders are going to fail in either mode. Successful founders have their preferred mode but aren't succeeding because of the mode. I suppose if a successful founder was in some way forced (by who?) to use the opposite of their preferred mode they'd have more difficulty, but they still are likely to succeed.

Waterluvian 2y ago

People like Paul seem to have just so much to say about startups for such a long time that at some point it starts to feel like they’re coming up with stuff to have things to keep saying. The binary state is too simplistic. But it is largely the hook to make the post attractive and successful.

tbe-stream 2y ago
It matches the popular sentiment among some engineers that professional management is useless or even harmful.
- nick3443 2y ago
  I feel this but how many long term successful companies exist with no professional management folks? Beyond Valve, are there more than a few existence proofs?
  - tbe-stream 2y ago
    My impression: there are very few and for good reasons.
  - paulryanrogers 2y ago
    I'd say Valve isn't even that successful at managing. IMO they lucked into a huge market demand and did a competent job. Yet haven't managed to produce HL3 after several attempts. There are also some horror stories from former employees of a shadow hierarchy and popularity contests.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  Not exactly. Let's say I'm a founder. I am one with the vision of what we're trying to build. Can a professional manager do that better than I can? Can he/she make the calls about what's in or out of scope, or what the architecture needs to be, better than I can? No and no. So it's not that professional management is harmful, just that it's worse than the founder can do. And in a startup, that's likely true. But founders don't scale, and there comes a point in the growth of a company where it quits being true.
  - sanderjd 2y ago
    You may be right about the answer for any individual decision, but for the universe of all decisions, the answers are yes and yes, because any decision is better than no decision, and a culture where only the founder's decisions are good enough is a culture that has a massive bottleneck in its ability to make decisions.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      It depends on three things: how fast the founder can make decisions, how fast the managers can make decisions, and how many total decisions there are to make. Founders often can make decisions more quickly than managers. They can also revisit decisions more quickly than managers. If the company is small, the founders can be a win - especially with higher-quality decisions.

cm277 2y ago

Agreed; I dont remember the source but I much prefer the Marines → Navy → Police continuum. Some circumstances require a highly capable team with high communication, aligned goals and motives, who can take decisions individually or at a low enough level. Some circumstances require bureaucracy, process, external and internal controls. The dumb "Founder mode" discourse hides away two things: a) scale forces you to climb that ladder towards bureaucracy and controls anyway, b) it's scope-specific. You don't want to go "Founder mode" on phone support. Or accounts payable, or probably HR. There are specific objectives, projects and also circumstances that need a more hands-on approach. And honestly a "Marines" analogy where the team is tight and authorized to make decisions, is better than some micro-managing, coke-fueled "Founder mode".

tbe-stream 2y ago
Indeed, often a mix of both types of processes is needed within a company. For those who are not familiar with it, check out Jeff Bezos’ 1997 Letter to Shareholders on irreversible (Type 1) vs. reversible (Type 2) decision making.
- hiatus 2y ago
  Can you link to the letter you are referring to? The top few results of my search had no mention of reversible decision making.
  - lelanthran 2y ago
    Try searching for 1-way vs 2-way decisions
    - hiatus 2y ago
      Here is the 1997 letter to shareholders that I found: https://venturebeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/amzn_shareholder-letter-20072.pdf https://venturebeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/amzn_shar... edit: I think I found it: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1018724/000119312516530910/d168744dex991.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1018724/000119312516...

conductr 2y ago

It amazes me how much people seems to want someone like PG to just give them a single one size fits all solution to all their founder problems. It just will never exist for any particular person/company/situation. The trick is to be aware of the differing modes and when to apply them. And also, knowing these things can be useful when receiving external advise (investors, advisors, etc) as far as evaluating whether the advise would even work for your situation. Where founder mode can be felt is when a founder has a "Vision" for their company, perhaps one that is difficult for others to see. They lean into the functional areas of their company that make strides into executing that vision and bringing it to reality. This is where they probably should exercise Founder mode. Other functions of the company may be support areas or lower impact areas towards realizing the vision, or just benefit from a particular domain expertise, this is where Manager mode likely comes into play. Although, I don't like the framing of "hire smart people and let them do good work" because it makes it sound like there are no goals or guardrails to what they are doing. The founder still needs to set expectations and monitor, and this even changes over time as next years goals for this team/individual will be different than this years. In any case, hiring good people is most likely still going to be important. I think in most cases even a founder with a great vision needs to be challenged by their employees (Founder asks for X, but Engineer makes a case for Y). You don't want to squash collaboration and morale. Although, if you're lucky enough to be an exceptional Founder then your employees will tolerate it, it's probably not a good strategy to bank on though.