Founder Mode vs. Manager Mode: Why It’s a False Choice

Founder Mode vs. Manager Mode: Why It’s a False Choice

Paul Graham, cofounder of Y Combinator, was so inspired by a speech by Airbnb cofounder and CEO that he wrote an essay about well-intentioned advice that, to scale a business, founders must shift modes and become managers.

It went viral. 

In the essay, he argued that:

In effect there are two different ways to run a company: founder mode and manager mode. Till now most people even in Silicon Valley have implicitly assumed that scaling a startup meant switching to manager mode. But we can infer the existence of another mode from the dismay of founders who’ve tried it, and the success of their attempts to escape from it.

With curiosity and an open mind, I read on.

I finished with a deep sigh and an eye roll. 

This is why.

Manager Mode: The realm of liars and professional fakers

On the off chance that you thought Graham’s essay would be a balanced and reflective examination of management styles in different corporate contexts, his description of Manager Mode should relieve you of that thought:

The way managers are taught to run companies seems to be like modular design in the sense that you treat subtrees of the org chart as black boxes. You tell your direct reports what to do, and it’s up to them to figure out how. But you don’t get involved in the details of what they do. That would be micromanaging them, which is bad.

Hire good people and give them room to do their jobs. Sounds great when it’s described that way, doesn’t it? Except in practice, judging from the report of founder after founder, what this often turns out to mean is: hire professional fakers and let them drive the company into the ground.

Later, he writes about how founders are gaslit into adopting Manager Mode from every angle, including by “VCs who haven’t been founders themselves don’t know how founders should run companies, and C-level execs, as a class, include some of the most skillful liars in the world.”

Founder Mode: A meritocracy of lifelong learners

For Graham, Founder Mode boils down to two things:

  1. Sweating the details
  2. Engaging with employees throughout the organization beyond just direct reports.  He cites Steve Jobs’ practice of holding “an annual retreat for what he considered the 100 most important people at Apple, and these were not the 100 people highest on the org chart.”

To his credit, Graham acknowledges that getting involved in the details is micromanaging, “which is bad,” and that delegation is required because “founders can’t keep running a 2000 person company the way they ran it when it had 20.” A week later, he acknowledged that female founders “don’t have permission to run their companies in Founder Mode the same way men can.”

Yet he persists in believing that Founder, not Manager, Mode is critical to success,

“Look at what founders have achieved already, and yet they’ve achieved this against a headwind of bad advice. Imagine what they’ll do once we can tell them how to run their companies like Steve Jobs instead of John Sculley.”

Leader Mode: Manager Mode + Founder Mode

The essay is interesting, but I have real issues with two of his key points:

  • Professional managers are disconnected from the people and businesses they manage, and as a result, their practices and behaviors are inconsistent with startup success.
  • Founders should ignore conventional wisdom and micromanage to their heart’s content.

Most “professional managers” I’ve met are deeply connected to the people they manage, committed to the businesses they operate, and act with integrity and authenticity. They are a far cry from the “professional fakers” and “skillful liars” Graham describes.

Most founders I’ve met should not be allowed near the details once they have a team in place. Their meddling, need for control, and soul-crushing FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) lead to chaos, burnout, and failure.

The truth is, it’s contextual.  The leaders I know switch between Founder and Manager mode based on the context.  They work with the passion of founders, trust with the confidence of managers, and are smart and humble enough to accept feedback when they go too far in one direction or the other.

Being both manager and founder isn’t just the essence of being a leader. It’s the essence of being a successful corporate innovator.  You are a founder,  investing in, advocating for, and sweating the details of ambiguous and risky work.  And you are a manager navigating the economic, operational, and political minefields that govern the core business and fund your paycheck and your team.

Who is More Creative – Men or Women? 753 Studies have the Answer

Who is More Creative – Men or Women? 753 Studies have the Answer

You were born creative. As an infant, you had to figure many things out—how to get fed or changed, get help or attention, and make a onesie covered in spit-up still look adorable.  As you grew older, your creativity grew, too.  You drew pictures, wrote stories, played dress-up, and acted out imaginary stories.

Then you went to school, and it was time to be serious.  Suddenly, creativity had a time and place.  It became an elective or a hobby.  Something you did just enough of to be “well-rounded” but not so much that you would be judged irresponsible or impractical.

When you entered the “real world,” your job determined whether you were creative.  Advertising, design, marketing, innovation?  Creative.  Business, medicine, law, engineering?  Not creative.

As if Job-title-a-determinant-of-creativity wasn’t silly enough, in 2022, a paper was published in the Journal of Applied Psychology that declared that, based on a meta-analysis of 259 studies (n=79,915), there is a “male advantage in creative performance.”

Somewhere, Don Draper, Pablo Picasso, and Norman Mailer high-fived.

But, as every good researcher (and innovator) knows, the headline is rarely the truth.  The truth is that it’s contextual and complicated, and everything from how the original studies collected data to how “creativity” was defined matters.

But that’s not what got reported.  It’s also not what people remember when they reference this study (and I have heard more than a few people invoke these findings in the three years since publication).

That is why I was happy to see Fortune report on a new study just published in the Journal of Applied Psychology. The study cites findings from a meta-analysis of 753 studies (n=265,762 individuals) that show men and women are equally creative. When “usefulness (of an idea) is explicitly incorporated in creativity assessment,” women’s creativity is “stronger.”

Somewhere, Mary Wells Lawrence, Frida Kahlo, and Virginia Woolf high-fived.

Of course, this finding is also contextual.

What makes someone “creative?”

Both studies defined creativity as “the generation of novel and useful ideas.”

However, while the first study focused on how context drives creativity, the second study looked deeper, focusing on two essential elements of creativity: risk-taking and empathy. The authors argued that risk-taking is critical to generating novel ideas, while empathy is essential to developing useful ideas.

Does gender influence creativity?

It can.  But even when it does, it doesn’t make one gender more or less creative than the other.

Given “contextual moderators” like country-level culture, industry gender composition, and role status, men tend to follow an “agentic pathway” (creativity via risk-taking), so they are more likely to generate novel ideas.

However, given the same contextual moderators, women follow a “communal pathway” (creativity via empathy), so they are more likely to generate useful ideas.

How you can use this to maximize creativity

Innovation and creativity go hand in hand. Both focus on creating something new (novel) and valuable (useful).  So, to maximize innovation within your team or organization, maximize creativity by:

  • Explicitly incorporate novelty and usefulness in assessment criteria.  If you focus only on usefulness, you’ll end up with extremely safe and incremental improvements.  If you focus only on novelty, you’ll end up with impractical and useless ideas.
  • Recruit for risk-taking and empathy.  While the manifestation of these two skills tends to fall along gender lines, don’t be sexist and assume that’s always the case.  When seeking people to join your team or your brainstorming session, find people who have demonstrated strong risk-taking or empathy-focused behaviors and invite them in.
  • Always consider the context.  Just as “contextual moderators” impact people’s creative pathways, so too does the environment you create.  If you want people to take risks, be vulnerable, and exhibit empathy, you must establish a psychologically safe environment first.  And that starts with making sure there aren’t any “tokens” (one of a “type”) in the group.

Which brings us back to the beginning.

You ARE creative.

How will you be creative today?

The Cost of Silence: Why Neglecting New Hires’ Ideas Hurts Revenue

The Cost of Silence: Why Neglecting New Hires’ Ideas Hurts Revenue

Stop me if this sounds familiar. A new hire bounces into your office and, with all the joy and enthusiasm of a new puppy, rattles off a list of ideas. You smile and, just like with new puppies, explain why their ideas won’t work, and encourage them to be patient and get to know the organization. 

Congratulations!  You just cost your company money. Not because the new hire’s idea was the silver bullet you’ve been seeking but because you taught them that it’s more critical for them to do their jobs and maintain the status quo than to ask questions and share ideas.

If that seems harsh, read the new research from Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson.

Year 1: Rainbows and Unicorns (mostly)

From 2017 through 2021, Dr. Edmonson and her colleagues collected data from over 10,000 physicians.  Using biannual (every two years) surveys, they asked physicians to rate on a 5-point scale how comfortable they felt offering opinions or calling out the mistakes of colleagues or superiors. 

It was little surprise that agreement with statements like “I can report patient safety mistakes without fear of punishment” were highest amongst people with less than one year of service at their employer.

These results all come down to one thing: high levels of psychological safety.

Years 2+: Resignation and Unhappiness

However, psychological safety erodes quickly in the first year because:

  • There’s a gap between words and actions: When new hires join an organization, they believe what they hear about its culture, values, priorities, and openness.  Once they’re in the organization and observe their colleagues’ and superiors’ daily behavior, they experience the disconnect, lose trust, and shift into self-protection mode.
  • Their feedback and ideas are rebuffed: This scenario is described above, but it’s not the only one.  Another common situation occurs when a new hire responds to requests for feedback only to be met with silence or exasperation, a lack of follow-through or follow-up, or is openly mocked or met with harsh pushback
  • Expectations increase with experience: It’s easier to ask questions when you’re new, and no one expects you to know the answers.  Over time, however, you are expected to learn the answers and you no longer feel comfortable asking questions, even if there’s no way you could know the answer.

20 years to regain what was lost in 1

According to Edmondson’s research, it takes up to 20 years to rebuild the safety lost in the first year.

As a leader, you can slow that erosion and accelerate the rebuilding when you:

  • Recognize the Risk: Knowing that new hires will experience a drop in psychological safety, staff them on teams that have higher levels of safety
  • Walk the Talk: Double down on demonstrating the behaviors you want. Immediately act on feedback that points out a gap between your words and actions.
  • Ask questions: Demonstrate your openness by being curious, asking questions, and asking follow-up questions.  As Edmonson writes, “You are training people to contribute by constantly asking questions.”
  • Promises Made = Promises Kept: If you ask for feedback, act on it.  If you ask for ideas, act on some and explain why you’re not executing others.
  • Be Vulnerable: Admit your mistakes and uncertainties.  It sets a powerful example that it’s okay to be imperfect and to ask for help. It also creates an environment for others to do the same.

The Cost of Silence vs. The Cost of Time

Building and maintaining psychological safety takes time and effort.  It takes 5 minutes to listen to and respond to an idea.  It takes hours to ensure new hires join safe teams.  It takes weeks to plan and secure support for post-hackathon ideas. 

But how does that compare to 20 years of lost ideas, improvements, innovations, and revenue?  To 20 years of lost collaboration, productivity, and peak effectiveness? To 20 years of slow progress, inefficiency, and cost?

How many of your employees stick around 20 years to give you the chance to rebuild what was lost?

The 5 Keys to Corporate Logevity

The 5 Keys to Corporate Logevity

The quest for immortality is as old as humankind.  From King Gilgamesh in 2100 BCE to Jeff Bezos and Larry Page, the only thing that stops our pursuit of longevity is death.   So why don’t we apply this same verve and vigor to building things that last forever?  Why don’t we invest in corporate longevity?

Consider this—in the last 80 years, human life expectancy increased by almost 30% while corporate life expectancy declined by almost 500%. Other research indicates that the average company’s lifespan on the S&P 500 Index dropped from 60 years in 1960 to just under 15 years in 2024.

We spend billions on products to slow, stop, and even reverse aging. Yet, according to the New York Times, there are just seven keys to living longer.

Could achieving corporate longevity possibly be just as simple?

Yes.

Here are 5 keys to corporate longevity.

1. Take care of yourself today AND invest for tomorrow

We all know what we should do to stay healthy.  But one night, you don’t sleep well, and hearing your 5:00 am alarm is physically painful.  What harm is there in skipping just one workout? At work, you had a bad quarter, so cutting the research project or laying off the innovation team seems necessary.  After all, if you don’t save today, there won’t be a tomorrow, right?

Right.  But skipping workouts becomes a habit that can bring your retirement plans crashing down.   Just like cutting investments in R&D, innovation, and next-gen talent makes keeping up with, adapting, and growing in a rapidly changing world impossible.

2. Build and nurture relationships.  Inside AND outside your company

According to the Harvard Study of Adult Development, strong relationships lead to happier and healthier lives and are the biggest predictor of well-being.  Turns out relationships are also good for business.

Strategic alliances and partnerships directly grow revenue.  For example, 95% of Microsoft’s commercial revenue comes from its partner ecosystem. Starbucks’ collaboration with Nestle allowed the coffee chain to expand its presence in people’s lives while Nestle gained access to a growing category without the cost of building its own brand.  There’s a reason that Andreessen Horowitz declared partnerships a “need to have” in today’s world.

3. Everything in moderation

Toddlers are the only people more distracted by shiny objects than executives.  Total Quality Management.  Yes, please.  Disruptive Innovation.  Absolutely.  Agile.  Thank you, I’ll take two.

Chasing new ideas isn’t wrong. It’s how you chase them that’s dangerous. Uprooting your existing processes and forcing everyone to immediately adopt Agile is the corporate equivalent of a starvation diet. You’ll see immediate improvements, but long-term, you’ll end up worse off.

4. Eliminate bad habits (and bad people)

“The culture of any organization is shaped by the worse behavior the leader is willing to tolerate.”

Read that again.  Slowly. 

To live longer, stop engaging in, tolerating, and justifying bad habits.  To make your company live longer, stop tolerating and justifying people and behaviors that contradict your company’s culture.  Eliminating bad behavior is tough, but it’s the only way to get to your goal.  In life and in business.

5. Rest

Getting 7-8 hours of sleep a night adds years to your life.  Less than five hours doubles your dementia risk.  More sleep also boosts your productivity and creativity at work.

The latest example of rest’s power is the four-day workweek.  In 2022, 61 UK companies adopted it without any changes in pay.  Two years later, 54 still have the policy, and over 30 made it permanent.  Other companies, like Microsoft in Japan, reported productivity increases of more than 40%.

What will you unlock with these keys?

As a leader, you have the power to build a legacy and a company that thrives for generations.  But that only happens if you channel the same energy into achieving corporate longevity that you put into pursuing a longer, healthier life.

By embracing the keys of corporate longevity—caring for today while investing in tomorrow, nurturing relationships, practicing moderation, eliminating bad habits, and prioritizing rest—you’ll build businesses that endure.

The journey to corporate immortality starts with a single step. What’s yours?

Leadership Confidence: Why Executives’ Trust in Their Teams is Plummeting and How to Rebuild It

Leadership Confidence: Why Executives’ Trust in Their Teams is Plummeting and How to Rebuild It

“Trust no one.  Suspect everyone.”  Great advice if you’re an MI6 agent trying to uncover a spy at the height of the Cold War.  Not great advice if you’re a senior executive responsible for leading a team to deliver record results.  So, when a report titled “Leadership Confidence Falls to Three-Year Low” was published, I hoped it was clickbait.  So I clicked.

Things only got worse.

While two-thirds of CEOs believe that their teams role model the right culture and behaviors, work together effectively as a team, and effectively embrace change, everyone else disagrees.  Only about half the C-suite believes their teams work together well, are role models, and embrace change.  The lower in the organization you go, the lower those percentages get.

Why confidence is at an all-time low

In a word – change.  Neither humans nor financial markets like change, and that’s all we’ve experienced for the past four years.  “From the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East and their destabilizing effects on the world, to inflation, rising interest rates, and the launch of ChatGPT igniting massive interest in generative AI, the leadership landscape has been far from quiet. What’s more, nearly half of the world’s population is set to head to the polls for what many are calling a ‘super election year.’”

None of this is the executive team’s fault, but the relentless nature of depressing and destabilizing news wears everyone down.  As a result, people have less patience and empathy and are quicker to anger, judge, and blame others.  Senior execs are people, too.  And they’re taking their exhaustion out on the people they spend the most time with – their teams.

What you can do about it

If you have the power to stop the wars, improve the financial markets, quell GenAI fears, and ensure that democracy reigns, please use that power now. (Also, what have you been waiting for?)

If you do not have such powers, there is still something you can do: Build trust.

Researchers found that leaders of high-performing organizations are 8x more likely to feel that their teams practice and role model high levels of trust in all their interactions across the organization. But the teams won’t practice and role model trust if you don’t set the example through:

  1. Inclusive, transparent, and vulnerable communication – Most of us grew up in cultures where information is power, so it is hard to build a habit of sharing information with everyone on the team, especially if it isn’t good news. But if you want your people to work together as a team, you can’t create cliques or pick and choose the information you share.  There is no trust where there are Haves and Have Nots.
  2. Lead by listening and collaborating – In case you haven’t noticed, command and control styles of management don’t work anymore.  The people on your teams are experienced adults with good ideas.  Treat them like adults, value their experience, and listen to their ideas.  You’ll be pleasantly surprised by what you hear and earn.
  3. Be consistent – If one of the causes of the problem is change and you want to be part of the solution, do the opposite – be consistent.  Yes, things can change, but who you are, the values you role model, and how you treat people shouldn’t.  When things change (and they will), remember that decisions made with data should only be unmade with data.  Then, communicate those changes broadly, transparently, and honestly (see #1)

What will you do about it?

Rebuilding trust within your team isn’t a quick fix; it’s an ongoing process that requires commitment and consistency. By being transparent, authentic, and reliable, fostering open communication, and empowering your team, you can create a high-trust environment that drives success.

What steps are you taking to (re)build trust within your teams? Share your thoughts and let’s navigate this journey together. Remember, trust is the glue that holds your team together and propels your organization forward.

Why Adjacent Innovation is Your Key to Managing Risk and Accelerating Growth

Why Adjacent Innovation is Your Key to Managing Risk and Accelerating Growth

It’s not easy leading innovation.  Especially these days.  You need to do more with less.  Take risks while guaranteeing results.  Keep up with competition through incremental innovation and redefine the industry with radical and disruptive innovation.  It’s maddening.  Until you find the Goldilocks Zone of adjacent innovation.

Adjacent Innovation: From Middle Child to Just Right

As HBS Professor Regina E. Herzlinger and her co-authors point out in a recent HBR article, the US is in the midst of an innovation crisis. The cost of lost productivity, estimated at over $10 trillion between 2006 and 2018, is a stark reminder of the economic consequences of a lack of innovation. This figure, equivalent to $95,000 per US worker, should serve as a wake-up call to the importance of innovation in driving economic growth.

The authors identify the root cause of this loss as the ‘polarized approach companies take to innovation.’ While companies focus on incremental innovation, the safe and reliable oldest child of the innovation family, the VCs chase after radical, transformative innovations, the wild, charismatic, free-spirited youngest child.  Meanwhile, adjacent innovation – new offerings and business models fo existing customers or new customers for existing offerings and business models – is, like the middle child, too often overlooked.

It’s time to rediscover it.  In fact, it’s also time to embrace and pursue it as the most promising path back to growth.   While incremental innovation is safe and reliable, it’s also the equivalent of cold porridge. Radical or transformative innovation is sexy, but, like hot porridge, it’s more likely to scorch than sustain you. Adjacent innovation, however, is just right – daring enough to change the game and leapfrog the competition and safe enough to merit investment and generate short-term growth.

Proof in the Porridge: 4x the returns in ½ the time

Last year, I worked with an industrial goods company. Their products aren’t sexy, and their brands are far from household names, but they make the things that make America run and keep workers (and the public) safe. The pandemic’s supply chain disruptions battered their business, and their backlog ballooned from weeks to months and even years.  Yet amidst these challenges, they continued to look ahead, and what they saw was a $6M revenue cliff that had to be filled in three years and a product and innovation pipeline covered in dust and cobwebs.

From Day 1, we agreed to focus on adjacent innovation.  For four weeks, we brainstormed, interviewed customers, and analyzed their existing offerings and capabilities, ultimately developing three concepts – two new products for existing customers and one existing product repositioned to serve a new customer.  After eight more weeks of work, we had gathered enough data to reject one of the concepts and double down on the other two.  Three months later, the teams had developed business cases to support piloting two of the concepts.

It took 6 months to go from a blank piece of paper to pilot approval.

It took just another 12 months to record nearly $25M in new revenue.

Those results are more than “just right.”

Be Goldilocks. Pursue Adjacent Innovation

Every organization can pursue adjacent innovation.  In fact, most of the companies we consider amongst the world’s “Most Innovative” have that reputation because of adjacent innovation. 

How will you become your organization’s Innovation Goldilocks and use adjacent innovation to create “just right” growth?