"Naive, no. Optimistic, absolutely." Neither. Arrogant it the right word. Not maliciously so, but arrogance nevertheless. An arrogance that is far from unique

"Naive, no. Optimistic, absolutely." Neither. Arrogant it the right word. Not maliciously so, but arrogance nevertheless. An arrogance that is far from unique in the start-up world, the arrogance to think that in spite of centuries of documented history you can create an organization that doesn't have clear formal structure and not have it end up as a cult-like snake pit. As companies, they fail to provide the kind of safety and security people who are not entrepreneurs need, and call it "freedom". And it may feel like freedom for a while, when it's still a small group of close friends, but after that it's just a Darwinian social experiment. And when the shit hits the fan, it doesn't matter who exactly did what. It's the arrogance and narcissism of the founders that is responsible. Founders who believe that everyone who works for them should be like them, and then everything will magically be good. "Tom saw himself not as CEO, but as the architect of a unique business structure. He wanted to create a company where he, himself, would have loved to have been an employee." This isn't visionary. This isn't naivety. This isn't optimism. It's narcissism.