TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Founder's Syndrome

70 点作者 benjaminjosephw将近 5 年前

17 条评论

cj将近 5 年前
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&#x2F;growing at all costs” level of devotion. Most startups won’t take off without some degree of fanatical founder behavior.<p>&gt; [the syndrome causes problems] following the effective initial establishment of the project<p>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)<p>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<p>Edit: Side note, why is this on Wikipedia? It would be a great blog post. But really Wikipedia?
评论 #23303134 未加载
kelvin0将近 5 年前
I&#x27;ve worked with founders and they&#x27;re great at getting stuff off the ground and have tremendous passion.<p>This is the &#x27;honeymoon&#x27; phase.<p>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 &#x27;next&#x27; level as an organization. They are usually set against formality and structure, which they perceive as as impediment to attaining their vision.<p>This is the &#x27;old ball and chain&#x27; phase.<p>Of course, this is from my direct experience.
评论 #23302385 未加载
评论 #23302024 未加载
philwelch将近 5 年前
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将近 5 年前
Sounds like Steve Jobs or Elon Musk. To some extent, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos.<p>Contrast: New &#x2F; outside CEO syndrome.<p>Any organizational design has problems. Founders tend to be better than replacements, but far from universally.<p>I&#x27;ve worked in two organizations with &quot;Founder&#x27;s Syndrome.&quot; 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.<p>That&#x27;s why I hate these stereotypes.
评论 #23301633 未加载
评论 #23301691 未加载
flixic将近 5 年前
It&#x27;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 &quot;problems&quot;: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Benevolent_dictator_for_life" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Benevolent_dictator_for_life</a>
评论 #23301671 未加载
评论 #23302344 未加载
评论 #23301690 未加载
gridlockd将近 5 年前
<i>&quot;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.&quot;</i><p>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 &quot;cowboy approach&quot;.<p>For instance, &quot;Founder&#x27;s Syndrome&quot; would apply to Apple with Steve Jobs at the helm - as opposed to IBM, which is run &quot;by the book&quot;. Most people don&#x27;t even know who runs IBM, nor do they care about IBM products.<p>If you have a charismatic founder, you have to ride that wave, because it&#x27;s a unique opportunity. Having somebody with the ability to &quot;rally the troops&quot; is invaluable. You can&#x27;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 &quot;playing it safe&quot; is risky as well.
spaceribs将近 5 年前
If anyone is interested in how organizations function (or not as the case may be), I highly recommend the book &quot;Moral Mazes&quot; by Robert Jackall: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Moral-Mazes-World-Corporate-Managers&#x2F;dp&#x2F;0199729883" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Moral-Mazes-World-Corporate-Managers&#x2F;...</a>
hising将近 5 年前
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&#x2F;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&#x2F;processes&#x2F;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&#x2F;mature way? Maybe the solution lies somewhere between? I think this is one reason this type of &quot;organizational theories&quot; arise. I think a lot of us has seen it and wondered why it happens.
dri_ft将近 5 年前
Justine Tunney wrote a post on her old blog arguing for founders&#x27; &#x27;right to rule&#x27;: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;web.archive.org&#x2F;web&#x2F;20151128145818&#x2F;http:&#x2F;&#x2F;justinetunney.com&#x2F;founders.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;web.archive.org&#x2F;web&#x2F;20151128145818&#x2F;http:&#x2F;&#x2F;justinetun...</a><p>&gt; 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.
评论 #23302197 未加载
评论 #23302113 未加载
评论 #23302255 未加载
评论 #23302202 未加载
enz将近 5 年前
I believe many people start business not for the money, but for the &quot;King-ish side&quot;, and I can understand that perfectly. However, even as a King (i.e. <i>especially</i> as a King) it&#x27;s important to be the first servant of the Kingdom. The king is mortal, but the Kingdom may not be.
leothekim将近 5 年前
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.<p>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将近 5 年前
I couldn&#x27;t find a similar link for &quot;failed organ transplants&quot; of empty shell companies after the founder(s) depart.<p>The whole &quot;company in name only&quot; disease (without the heart, mind and soul of a founder) deserves its own label.
评论 #23302242 未加载
perfobotto将近 5 年前
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
评论 #23302708 未加载
justinmeiners将近 5 年前
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?
评论 #23303572 未加载
评论 #23303586 未加载
Noxmiles将近 5 年前
Working in a company founded 1990, still has the Founder&#x27;s Syndrome...<p>(Also, I kinda read &quot;Tesla Motors&quot; between the lines)
seemslegit将近 5 年前
Contrast and compare with the butt-hurt employee effect.
kanox将近 5 年前
Why does this crap deserve a wikipedia article?<p>It&#x27;s just a bunch of moaning that sometimes founders have too much power inside organizations that they founded (imagine that).
评论 #23301660 未加载
评论 #23301782 未加载
评论 #23302006 未加载
评论 #23301638 未加载
评论 #23302576 未加载
评论 #23301832 未加载
评论 #23301661 未加载
评论 #23301625 未加载