The recent release of the "founder mode" concept by Paul Graham has stirred quite a debate esp from the ‘manager mode’ groups.
It’s true that at scale-up, your standard VC advice would be to “hire good people and let them do the job” - most VCs believe that it is your WD 40 fix for scale-ups. But it’s also true that if left unchecked, the calibration and alignment between team members might drift, which affects the mission of the business.
There are some examples of how “founder mode” operates. In Steve Jobs' "Top 100" retreat, regardless of where they are in the company hierarchy, the top 100 performers were invited to a retreat with Jobs. And because it's a special thing, it fostered a startup-like hustle for employees to be among the top achievers.
Elon Musk’s approach to founder mode involves trimming and sharpening the team. He also gives them a sense of ownership with responsibility - to see what he sees - and reshape as quickly as needed.
Jack’s trend I believe is more agile as he switches between founder mode and manager mode, as and when needed. His philosophy from what I read, emphasizes not just finding great people, but those who are passionate about the mission and capable of working well together (non-toxic) in reaching the goals.
My personal view is that there is no cookie cutter fix or a one-size-fits-all solution between "manager mode" and "founder mode." Early-stage entrepreneurs building products will eventually shift to building businesses. Some will embrace this shift, others won’t. Some will be great in both roles, others may struggle.
At a scale up business, the dynamic changes and the momentum is different - which explains why Zuckerberg shifted from “move fast and break things” to a more measured approach - focus on speed but with caution.
At the same time, at the scale-up stage, companies want to preserve startup culture, so large corporations often advocate for "corporate startups," which are hybrids of traditional startups and corporate R&D. They have the rebellious spirit and agility of traditional startups but are funded by a parent company. Many has worked tremendously well such as Block’s Spiral, which developed LDK independently (without direction from parent company) and later benefited the company’s core business, Cash App. Some didn’t work as well, like Google’s EV car initiative.
I've worked as both a corporate engineering manager and a startup entrepreneur, and they both have very diff strategy, speed, focus and goals. Scale-up is like a combo but a million times harder as it comes with immense responsibility in growing the business and expanding the team efficiently, and managing shareholders, all while being innovative and strategic in business-building, just as you would be in building the product.
One part that fascinated me about the essay is the 3 phases the founders go through.
- At first you listen to the VC (because you are clueless at initial stages) .
- Then you go against them (because their advice is not working for you, something doesnt feel right)
- and finally, the VCs end up listening to you (because your strategy is successfully scaling up your business).
By the time you reach stage 3, you are likely wiser with all the experiences. But most founders will struggle to get past stage 1 and 2 for various reasons.
I’ve enjoyed all of Paul Graham’s essays. He explains both high-level concepts and low-level no-brainers with clarity (I need both). And rather timeless too, some essays from 18 years ago are still so relevant today.
This one has induced a big debate which is great because the VC rigid world needs a bit of a shake up now and then. Check it out - https://paulgraham.com/foundermode.html
pam
npub1pv…kdx8c
2024-09-04 06:58:04
Author Public Key
npub1pvgcusxk7006hvtlyx555erhq8c5pk9svw57snlxujpkgnkup89sekdx8cPublished at
2024-09-04 06:58:04Event JSON
{
"id": "d23037ed3b95236a4881695aa8720a7bd12e4bab222970fee41595201e706868",
"pubkey": "0b118e40d6f3dfabb17f21a94a647701f140d8b063a9e84fe6e483644edc09cb",
"created_at": 1725433084,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [],
"content": "The recent release of the \"founder mode\" concept by Paul Graham has stirred quite a debate esp from the ‘manager mode’ groups. \n\nIt’s true that at scale-up, your standard VC advice would be to “hire good people and let them do the job” - most VCs believe that it is your WD 40 fix for scale-ups. But it’s also true that if left unchecked, the calibration and alignment between team members might drift, which affects the mission of the business. \n\nThere are some examples of how “founder mode” operates. In Steve Jobs' \"Top 100\" retreat, regardless of where they are in the company hierarchy, the top 100 performers were invited to a retreat with Jobs. And because it's a special thing, it fostered a startup-like hustle for employees to be among the top achievers.\n\nElon Musk’s approach to founder mode involves trimming and sharpening the team. He also gives them a sense of ownership with responsibility - to see what he sees - and reshape as quickly as needed. \n\nJack’s trend I believe is more agile as he switches between founder mode and manager mode, as and when needed. His philosophy from what I read, emphasizes not just finding great people, but those who are passionate about the mission and capable of working well together (non-toxic) in reaching the goals. \n\nMy personal view is that there is no cookie cutter fix or a one-size-fits-all solution between \"manager mode\" and \"founder mode.\" Early-stage entrepreneurs building products will eventually shift to building businesses. Some will embrace this shift, others won’t. Some will be great in both roles, others may struggle.\n\nAt a scale up business, the dynamic changes and the momentum is different - which explains why Zuckerberg shifted from “move fast and break things” to a more measured approach - focus on speed but with caution. \n\nAt the same time, at the scale-up stage, companies want to preserve startup culture, so large corporations often advocate for \"corporate startups,\" which are hybrids of traditional startups and corporate R\u0026D. They have the rebellious spirit and agility of traditional startups but are funded by a parent company. Many has worked tremendously well such as Block’s Spiral, which developed LDK independently (without direction from parent company) and later benefited the company’s core business, Cash App. Some didn’t work as well, like Google’s EV car initiative. \n \nI've worked as both a corporate engineering manager and a startup entrepreneur, and they both have very diff strategy, speed, focus and goals. Scale-up is like a combo but a million times harder as it comes with immense responsibility in growing the business and expanding the team efficiently, and managing shareholders, all while being innovative and strategic in business-building, just as you would be in building the product. \n\nOne part that fascinated me about the essay is the 3 phases the founders go through. \n- At first you listen to the VC (because you are clueless at initial stages) . \n- Then you go against them (because their advice is not working for you, something doesnt feel right)\n- and finally, the VCs end up listening to you (because your strategy is successfully scaling up your business). \n\nBy the time you reach stage 3, you are likely wiser with all the experiences. But most founders will struggle to get past stage 1 and 2 for various reasons. \n\nI’ve enjoyed all of Paul Graham’s essays. He explains both high-level concepts and low-level no-brainers with clarity (I need both). And rather timeless too, some essays from 18 years ago are still so relevant today. \n\nThis one has induced a big debate which is great because the VC rigid world needs a bit of a shake up now and then. Check it out - https://paulgraham.com/foundermode.html\n",
"sig": "f31c662c51e7f51c1f0e0a4849c175d6362ca2c5c347fac257e9613e51dae1562e163d50149860f95bba6b4f31c67b541a80d0d2a7cf52de88da1ab6fdaa27a6"
}