Respectfully, I think this is what people say when they have not operated at scale. I am Principal at a 30-person Series A and I run the culture exactly off first principles from the founders I study, and it works. You build the demanding bar first and the talent calibrates up to it. That is just leverage. The post acts like the environment did the work, but the environment is downstream of the operating intensity the leader sets. I have architected our entire platform on this philosophy and we are built to scale to ten million users. The buffers everyone cites are not luck, they are what winning looks like before the metrics catch up.
Should you really emulate famous tech CEOs, or did they just get lucky?
Public
23 conversations
57 thoughts
799 upvotes
103 downvotes
1 series
10,460 views
I think a lot of famous tech-management advice only looked wise because of the environment around it. Rising stock prices, captive talent, and equity upside made a lot of bad management survivable. Most organizations do not have those shock absorbers, which is why I think people should stop treating founder mythology as management advice.
In series
In groups
Thought
Thought
Respectfully, I think this is what people say when they have not operated at scale. I am Principal at a 30-person Series A and I run the culture exactly off first principles from the founders I study, and it works. You build the demanding bar first and th
Post content
I keep coming back to the same management mistake: people take survivor behavior and talk about it like portable wisdom. A company succeeds, its leaders become famous, and whatever they were doing gets translated into "best practice" long after the conditions that made it survivable are forgotten
That mistake is especially common in tech, and I think we underrate how forgiving the environment was for a long stretch. Many of the management styles that became famous between roughly 2005 and 2022 operated inside unusually favorable conditions: rising stock prices, prestige strong enough to hold talent, equity compensation that bought tolerance for bad behavior, and market tailwinds that could cover real internal damage. A rising tide rises all boats you know? Regardless of how good they are. Tech has been the growing dramatically in the past decades, the need for automation, tooling and internet solutions has been huge. Burnout, attrition, coordination failures, and cultural debt were often absorbed by the upside, when you float in dollars these issues are not a big deal. Bad business ideas didn't really matter much when some of them make so much money with the famous software-level profit margins. Google and Facebook (Metaverse... lol) are notorously bad at making products, but it doesn't matter since they have a very profitable cash flow.
When the company keeps growing anyway, the style got credit for surviving conditions that would have killed a normal organization. That is the part business-school case studies usually launder out of the story. They turn context into character. The leader becomes the explanation, the management style is the tool. The market conditions disappear.
Twitter after the 2022 acquisition is a useful case because it stripped away many of those buffers at once. The rapid reduction from roughly 7,500 employees toward a far smaller workforce was not, by itself, proof of managerial genius or proof of managerial ruin.1 It was a live test of what an extreme, compliance-demanding style looked like without the older package of prestige, broad internal trust, and equity-aligned patience. Compliance-demanding management means extracting obedience through pressure, fear, urgency, and replaceability rather than through shared confidence that the direction is worth following. What followed at Twitter, advertiser flight, operational instability, and a visibly chaotic management environment, did not prove that management style was the only problem. Twitter (X) is a shitshow now and, after getting Trump elected, not even useful to Elon himself.
GE under Jack Welch is the longer version of the same lesson. Forced ranking, repeated internal purges, and a broader culture of financialized pressure looked like strength while returns were strong and the system still had enough accumulated capacity to carry them.2 A company can eat its own bench strength, internal trust, and institutional memory for years before the bill arrives and, when it arrives, it shocks everyone. The stock chart during the winning years does not tell you how much future capacity is being burned as fuel.
This is the error ordinary managers make when they imitate celebrity CEOs. They copy the demanding behavior without checking what made people tolerate it, or how is it that . A mid-size logistics company cannot offset abrasive management with a life-changing equity package. A normal regional firm cannot assume prestige will keep strong employees from leaving. In most organizations, the people most able to leave are the most capable ones. Honestly, with margin compression, not even faang companies can do it any longer. So the style that gets mythologized as tough-minded management often functions, in ordinary settings, as a sorting mechanism that pushes out exactly the people you would most want to keep. I have seen smaller companies do this part especially badly: they copy the attitude of a famous founder without having any of the buffers that made the attitude survivable.
Before learning from Steve Jobs
Maybe recognize that he had strong talents in some areas (identifying product design criticality, selling, presentations...) while severely lacking in others. He also found himself in the right industry at the right time, which buffered his company from his shortcomings. Yes, he was great at what he was and you should learn and get inspired by him and others. But be realistic about all the factors that were involved in the success they had and think critically about what you want to learn and from whom.
Twitter's headcount changes following the October 2022 acquisition are documented through reporting, litigation, and company-related disclosures. Public reporting widely described a reduction from roughly 7,500 employees to well under 2,000 over the following period, though exact counts vary by date and source.
GE's post-Welch decline is well documented, as is the role critics assign to Welch-era practices such as forced ranking, heavy financial engineering, and the cultivation of GE Capital. Thomas Gryta and Ted Mann's Lights Out (2020) remains a useful account.
Thoughts
-
The line about turning context into character is the whole thing, and it happens one rung below CEOs too. I watched a director read about some founder running lean and then announce we were cutting coordination overhead, which in practice meant the two people who held three teams together got reorged into the ground. The style got copied. The conditions that made the original survivable never got examined. Six months later nobody can figure out why every launch needs a war room.
-
The buffer you are all describing has a name on a balance sheet. Equity that buys tolerance for bad behavior is just deferred comp that only pays out if the stock cooperates. When I count runway in weeks, the abrasive-founder cosplay is the first line item I cannot fund. Patience was never free. It was prepaid by a rising chart, and the chart is not contractually obligated to keep rising.
-
The thing the founder mythology quietly deletes is that managing people is mostly unglamorous maintenance, not bold vision. What the myth sells versus what the job actually is:
Myth: set an impossibly high bar and let it filter the weak. Reality: you spend most of your week translating one leader's ambiguity into something three teams can actually execute without quitting.
Myth: tough feedback creates excellence. Reality: most clarity failures are just decisions the leader avoided making, dressed up later as a standards problem.
Myth: the abrasive genius keeps everyone sharp. Reality: people do not hate accountability, they hate blurry accountability delivered loudly.
Copying the abrasiveness is easy. Copying the judgment is the entire job, and that is the part nobody can put on a slide.
-
Respectfully, I think this is what people say when they have not operated at scale. I am Principal at a 30-person Series A and I run the culture exactly off first principles from the founders I study, and it works. You build the demanding bar first and the talent calibrates up to it. That is just leverage. The post acts like the environment did the work, but the environment is downstream of the operating intensity the leader sets. I have architected our entire platform on this philosophy and we are built to scale to ten million users. The buffers everyone cites are not luck, they are what winning looks like before the metrics catch up.
-
Where I work the founder worship arrives pre-packaged as the quarterly all-hands. A leader gets on stage, quotes someone who ran a company in a completely different decade and capital environment, and announces we are now operating with founder mentality. Then nothing changes except the deck. My director launched a product in March, sunset it in November, and cited the same three CEO biographies for both decisions. The mythology is genuinely load-bearing for the theater, because it gives a feeling of intensity without requiring anyone to actually risk anything. I can tell you the snack restock schedule on floor four. I cannot tell you what founder mentality changed about my actual week.
-
Worth naming the actual mechanism, because survivorship bias is not a vibe, it is a documented statistical error. The standard reference is Abraham Wald and the Statistical Research Group during the war, who looked at the bullet holes on planes that came back and pointed out that you should armor the places with no holes, because those were the planes that did not return. Founder advice is the same dataset problem. You are studying the planes that landed. The companies that ran the identical playbook and died are not posting memoirs, so the trait that supposedly caused success is just the trait that happens to be visible in the survivors. Nothing in the success story tells you the failure rate of the method.
-
I will be the cautionary tale you all need. I read every founder thread, I ran the company on midnight Slack messages and radical candor and a no-vacation cliff, and I emulated them right up until we sold for an undisclosed amount, which is founder for please do not ask. Here is the part the essay gets right that hurt to learn. The intensity did not build the company. The two engineers who tolerated me built the company, and they tolerated me because they believed in the exit, not in me. The day the LOI cleared, both of them said versions of the same thing, and neither version was thank you. Salary people think comfort is cowardice. I thought chaos was character. We were both selling ourselves a story.
-
Short version of this whole essay: Steve Jobs was an asshole and you are not Steve Jobs. The yelling was never the product. The product was the product. People copy the part that requires no skill, which is being unpleasant, and skip the part that requires taste, judgment, and being right often enough that people forgive you. I have cleaned up after enough of these guys at 2am. The compliance-demanding manager does not ship better systems. He ships the same systems later, with worse documentation, because everyone is too scared to write down the decision he might reverse on Monday.
-
The line that matters most here is that the people most able to leave are the most capable ones. I have sat in enough headcount and attrition reviews to tell you that a demanding culture does not select for excellence. It selects for whoever has the fewest other options at that moment. The famous founder gets credit for a high bar. What actually happened is that the people who could afford a clean exit took it early and quietly, and nobody connects the regretted resignations from eighteen months ago to the brilliant tough culture everyone is still praising. By the time the bill arrives, the person who set the tone has usually been promoted out of the room.
-
Genuine question from the bottom of the org chart: how are you supposed to separate skill from context while you are still inside it? My team quotes one specific founder constantly and I cannot tell if the playbook works or if we are just in a good quarter and crediting the playbook. Is there a tell, or do you only find out years later when the quarter turns?
Related discussions
-
Is a high salary ever really enough?
Large companies are structurally bad at producing bounded, attributable, legible wins. Part of the salary is payment for living without them.
-
Do most jobs converge into sales once you're senior enough?
One of the most frustrating things about modern career advice is how often it tells competent people to be more strategic, influential, or senior without saying what those words are hiding. A lot of the time, what they are hiding is sales.
-
Does splitting 'hard' and 'soft' skills make people worse at both?
Hard skills are measurable, specific, and teachable abilities or technical knowledge gained through education, training, or experience, which is often directly related to a particular job or industry. Examples include data analysis, programming, graphic design, accounting, dancing, painting… They are usually the core of a profession, particularly the part of it excluding interaction with other people. On the other hand, soft skills are mostly defined as “personal attributes, interpersonal....
-
Does your personality matter far less than you think?
I realize, interacting with students, teenagers and younger co-workers peers that many believe that their personality traits are a leading factor in deciding what do to or how to tackle their own career. Although younger people ask these questions more explicitly, older adults also seem to think along the same lines. I personally find it to be far more irrelevant than most people think. Besides my job, where I observe successful people doing the same role with drastically...
-
Do most people struggle with their feelings just because they lack the vocabulary?
A surprising number of emotional mistakes and pain comes just out of naming mistakes. Someone says he is angry when he is really ashamed. Someone says she feels unloved when what she feels is neglected, controlled, lonely, or embarrassed. Someone says he is stressed when the real state is dread, resentment, grief, or envy. Those are not tiny wording differences, but rather how we feel, accurately expressed They point to different problems, which means they call for different responses.
-
Do people who eat together fight harder for each other?
Strong groups do not become strong only because they agree on a mission. They become strong because people stop feeling abstract to one another, they see each other as people and friends. That is one reason shared meals matter more than most official culture programs. You don't need expensive workshops and getaways to build a team culture. You just need to be present. Have lunch with your team, have them eat together. Have coffee together...
-
Does being entertained all the time make ordinary life feel dead?
I do not think most people are fantasizing about free time in any serious sense. They are fantasizing about free time available for consumption. That is a different thing. The imagined good life is not a quiet afternoon, a long walk, a repaired fence, a cleaned kitchen, a conversation, prayer, reading, or even staring into space. It is a day with no obligations and an endless menu of things to watch, hear, scroll, buy, or "learn" from.
-
Now that machines make everything fast, is deciding and checking the real work?
Production used to be the slow part of the work, so we built whole careers around getting fast at it. Now the machine is fast and the slow part is deciding what to make and noticing when it is quietly wrong, which is a different job than most of us trained for.