
Founder's Syndrome - benjaminjosephw
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder%27s_syndrome
======
cj
Much of the characteristics described are necessary for early success of a
company. After all, you need at least 1 founder with a “work all day and night
to keep the company alive/growing at all costs” level of devotion. Most
startups won’t take off without some degree of fanatical founder behavior.

> [the syndrome causes problems] following the effective initial establishment
> of the project

This is easy to accept in theory. In practice, there is rarely a specific
event or milestone that determines the “effective initial establishment of the
project” (after which, according the the wiki article, Founderitis turns from
necessary to harmful)

A lot of founders operate in survival mode (sometimes quite literally) when
starting a company. Transitioning out of survival mode once the company has
enough momentum and traction to be able to survive on its own is easier said
than done, most often (I think) because it’s difficult for founders to
identify the exact point in time where things will and can go on without them
which is often years after the company was founded

Edit: Side note, why is this on Wikipedia? It would be a great blog post. But
really Wikipedia?

~~~
robocat
The last link in the article kind of defends “egomaniacal” founders:
[https://www.businessinsider.com/entrepreneurship-startup-
fou...](https://www.businessinsider.com/entrepreneurship-startup-founders-
success-overconfidence-andreessen-horowitz-scott-kupor-2019-6?r=AU&IR=T)

Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz described their ideal candidate in a single
word: "egomaniacal." Founding partner Kupor said "The really successful
entrepreneurs are able to willfully suspend disbelief, but then also figure
out a way to not make themselves impossible to deal with."

> Side note, why is this on Wikipedia?

I think there are enough papers for the topic to be on Wikipedia, although it
could do with some balance.

------
kelvin0
I've worked with founders and they're great at getting stuff off the ground
and have tremendous passion.

This is the 'honeymoon' phase.

However once things start picking up and the company is becoming less and less
of a startup the they can be the greatest hindrance to achieving the 'next'
level as an organization. They are usually set against formality and
structure, which they perceive as as impediment to attaining their vision.

This is the 'old ball and chain' phase.

Of course, this is from my direct experience.

~~~
PragmaticPulp
This is a well-known phenomenon in the VC world. From the outside, it looks
like evil VCs are just trying to take over the company, but often the company
outgrows the founder’s comfort zone.

Many founders are successful precisely because they micromanage every detail
of the product and execution, leaving no room for inefficiencies. As you said,
this can be effective for getting things off the ground.

However, past a certain scale the micromanagement physically cannot work.
There aren’t enough hours in a week for the CEO to have a hand in every
significant decision on every team.

Good CEOs learn how to scale themselves, build trusted org structures,
delegate responsibility, and focus the CEO on the things that matter most.

However, many founders just don’t enjoy this. They founded a company not
because they loved sitting at the top of an org structure, delegating all of
the fun work to middle managers. They liked being in the thick of it, fighting
fires and calling shots. So that’s what they cling to, to the detriment of the
company.

Nobody likes to be micromanaged. Having a micromanaging founder at the helm of
the company extends the micromanagement to every level, with an added
multiplier of the micromanager having absolute control over the company. There
is no pushing back, no changing teams to escape it. You either commit to the
micromanagement, or you leave the company.

~~~
kelvin0
Exactly, that's why I left. It was unbearable for me to see we were
consistently pushing half-baked features out of the door with technical debt
piling up. Also seeing your colleagues being baffled at supporting customers
with new features no one has ever told them about, deployed in production.

I'm all for move fast and break things (sometimes), but this cowboy, shoot
from the hip was unsustainable, we simply could not keep up with developing
new features and shipping them ad-hoc with barely any support.

A lot of burnout in that org also.

------
philwelch
All in all, I think I’d take founder’s syndrome over many of the alternative
forms of organizational disorder and dysfunction. For instance, this sounds
like a much better situation than a complete lack of vision and guidance,
political infighting, or a technical firm that is run by a parasitic infection
of bean counters who slowly erode safety-critical practices and encourage
normalization of deviance.

------
wegs
Sounds like Steve Jobs or Elon Musk. To some extent, Bill Gates and Jeff
Bezos.

Contrast: New / outside CEO syndrome.

Any organizational design has problems. Founders tend to be better than
replacements, but far from universally.

I've worked in two organizations with "Founder's Syndrome." In one, it was
hyper-destructive in much the way described. In one, it lead to a lot of soft
issues (we felt micromanaged), but ultimately, really good technology which
won in the market.

That's why I hate these stereotypes.

~~~
kanox
> Sounds like Steve Jobs

Apple went to shit when Steve Jobs was pushed out and only recovered when he
came back. This is the worst example if you want to claim that excessive
founder control is a negative thing.

~~~
Andrew_nenakhov
Chances are SJ learned a lot from that experience and returned to Apple more
ready to run it. If he wasn't pushed out, it is likely he could run the
company into the ground much faster than his replacements did.

------
flixic
It's interesting how in open-source projects, BDFL (Benevolent Dictator for
Life) is usually not seen in a negative light, and the Wikipedia article does
not list any "problems":
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life)

~~~
ivraatiems
I absolutely see it in a negative light. I'm often critical of Linus Torvalds
(in terms of communication and behavior, not technical ability), and he's got
the same cult of personality around him that many abrasive CEOs do. See also
recent drama around Elm and the difficulty some have had with its maintainers.

Open source is, if anything, even _more_ likely to suffer negative effects.
And less likely to properly report or handle them, because even the bare
minimum profit motive isn't there as a monitor.

(In terms of companies, by the way, Epic Systems - that is, the EHR company,
not the game company - and Valve Software are two good, little-talked-about
examples of this problem.)

~~~
robocat
> I'm often critical of Linus Torvalds (in terms of communication and behavior

I think that is misguided opinion. Linus is mostly correct (the opposite of
Founders Syndrome). He obviously has great interpersonal skills, otherwise
Linux would not hold together as a team, and it would be forked by groups
within. Even his “rants” seem well reasoned and purposeful (not unguided
anger), and he changed his behaviour when pressured by some of those he works
with: a sign of maturity and definitely not Founder’s Syndrome (has he kept
their support?). A “BDFL” maintains their position by people voting with their
time and effort, and support is withdrawn if the BDFL lacks the emotional
skills or technical “taste” to maintain group cohesion.

------
gridlockd
_" The founder makes all decisions, big and small, without a formal process or
input from others. Decisions are made in crisis mode, with little forward
planning. Staff meetings are held generally to rally the troops, get status
reports, and assign tasks. There is little meaningful strategic development,
or shared executive agreement on objectives with limited or a complete lack of
professional development."_

This is meant to sound negative, but there are a lot of upsides to this.
Design by committee, analysis paralysis, lack of agility, diffusion of
responsibility and many more problems plague organizations that attempt to
achieve the opposite of this "cowboy approach".

For instance, "Founder's Syndrome" would apply to Apple with Steve Jobs at the
helm - as opposed to IBM, which is run "by the book". Most people don't even
know who runs IBM, nor do they care about IBM products.

If you have a charismatic founder, you have to ride that wave, because it's a
unique opportunity. Having somebody with the ability to "rally the troops" is
invaluable. You can't just hire somebody to do that for you. If you have too
many concerns about this, take your money (or your labor) elsewhere, but keep
in mind that "playing it safe" is risky as well.

------
spaceribs
If anyone is interested in how organizations function (or not as the case may
be), I highly recommend the book "Moral Mazes" by Robert Jackall:
[https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Mazes-World-Corporate-
Managers/...](https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Mazes-World-Corporate-
Managers/dp/0199729883)

------
hising
My take on this is that this is in some sense an outcome from organizations
growing too fast. Fast growth indicates that the founders has done something
right. Fast growing companies wakes the interest in certain types of people
who wants to be part of the growth. After a couple of years and/or first
couple of failures some people start talking about how the organization needs
to mature. A conflict between founders (with friends) once successful approach
and people in the growing org that wants more structure/processes/transparency
starts. As all problems, no answer is right, is it the right way to go the old
validated successful way or the new boring/mature way? Maybe the solution lies
somewhere between? I think this is one reason this type of "organizational
theories" arise. I think a lot of us has seen it and wondered why it happens.

------
dri_ft
Justine Tunney wrote a post on her old blog arguing for founders' 'right to
rule':
[https://web.archive.org/web/20151128145818/http://justinetun...](https://web.archive.org/web/20151128145818/http://justinetunney.com/founders.html)

> I firmly believe that founders have a right to rule. This is because
> founders are the sorts of people who do not take power; they do not usurp
> power; and they do not inherit power. Instead, founders create their power
> from thin air where there was previously none. Founders are simply awesome
> people who make things happen; and as a result, they experience this
> phenomenon where power just materialises around them from the æther. It’s
> the truest and most noble form of power, and I feel it ought be embraced
> despotically.

~~~
ashtonkem
Founders often have the legal right to authority in their companies, but
advocating for “despotic” power is ... unsavory.

~~~
elliekelly
Until the 80s the rule for public companies was “one share, one vote.”

~~~
dannyw
And that's how it should be.

------
enz
I believe many people start business not for the money, but for the "King-ish
side", and I can understand that perfectly. However, even as a King (i.e.
_especially_ as a King) it's important to be the first servant of the Kingdom.
The king is mortal, but the Kingdom may not be.

------
leothekim
There’s a point in every company’s trajectory where you should decide if
you’re aiding in the company’s success or hindering it, and I believe this is
doubly true for founders. In my personal experience, almost every startup I’ve
worked in a founder was pushed out by the board or by a cofounder, voluntarily
stepped down, or marginalized, and often for the better. The one case it
didn’t happen, it should have.

Some companies do great with founders still in charge. (Stripe, AirBnB).
Others realized their full potential after the founders stepped away (Google
comes to mind). Either way, a founder should know when their time is up and
think about what’s best for the organization.

------
aSplash0fDerp
I couldn't find a similar link for "failed organ transplants" of empty shell
companies after the founder(s) depart.

The whole "company in name only" disease (without the heart, mind and soul of
a founder) deserves its own label.

~~~
PragmaticPulp
> I couldn't find a similar link for "failed organ transplants" of empty shell
> companies after the founder(s) depart.

False dichotomy.

Plenty of founders learn how to scale their companies and delegate to an
effective management structure.

This article is about founders who cling to the micromanagement structure that
works when startups are small but fails when companies grow larger.

------
perfobotto
If I was a founder I would certainly try to give to my organization “founder
syndrome”. And I’d keep my company private for as much as I could :P

~~~
yowlingcat
This is a very valid way to run a certain kind of company. If the company is
kept to a certain size and scope, you can achieve a lot of success with little
headaches. But, for companies that reach (or need to reach) a certain
organizational size to survive, there's an upper logistical limit on how far
you can take this while getting away with it. Bureaucracies, processes and
mechanisms were invented out of this necessity.

------
justinmeiners
Can we think of an already successful company that got better after the
original founders left and the operation became managed by policies and
processes?

~~~
thaneross
I can't think of any. Process attempts to reduce humans into instruction
following machines. Sometimes this is necessary (think safety checklists) but
most of the time it squanders the very thing that makes humans special: the
ability to make predictions and respond to changing circumstances.

~~~
justinmeiners
I think most people need a lot of structure in their jobs. Building a company
beyond individuals is largely formalizing a way of doing things. But, the
process should take the guess work out of everything routine, and provide
principles and freedom to do the tasks they are competent at.

With that said, the requirements for an early startup are completely
different. It can just be a collection of great people making independent
decisions.

------
Noxmiles
Working in a company founded 1990, still has the Founder's Syndrome...

(Also, I kinda read "Tesla Motors" between the lines)

------
seemslegit
Contrast and compare with the butt-hurt employee effect.

------
kanox
Why does this crap deserve a wikipedia article?

It's just a bunch of moaning that sometimes founders have too much power
inside organizations that they founded (imagine that).

~~~
Andrew_nenakhov
You see, someone created an organization and then runs is as he sees fit (in
fact, tries do do the best, to the limit of his abilities). Someone is
displeased by the results _(Oh, the horror!)_ , and starts raging how he would
improve things.

This often happens when a displeased person is working in a said organization.

~~~
chasing
Employees are stakeholders in a company. They have the right to express
displeasure when the founder "tries do do the best, to the limit of his
abilities" and nevertheless creates problems and/or demonstrates they are
incapable of quality leadership as the organization grows.

~~~
Andrew_nenakhov
When I got really unhappy with the way my ex-boss ran the company he founded
(including many lies and false promises he never meant to keep), I have quit
and started my own company.

I imagine some employees have left my company, too, because they were unhappy
with the way I ran things. However, I have never resorted to lies and making
promises I never meant to keep.

~~~
yowlingcat
I don't know how long you've been running a company, but the bar to
successfully surviving is a lot higher than simply refraining from lying or
breaking promises. There's a reason why the vast majority of startups have
failed and continue to fail time and time again. It's hard.

But, you'll make it a lot harder on yourself if you blame it on others when
they leave. It will mean that if there is a systematic problem with the
company, you will have shirked responsibility of dealing with it and are
putting everyone else who works at the company at risk. Is that something
you're willing to do? Is rectifying it something you are equipped to do?

~~~
Andrew_nenakhov
_> I don't know how long you've been running a company_

Since 2007.

