Silicon Valley’s current fascination with a trendy management meme illustrates a broader and more troubling turn in certain powerful pockets of its culture — one that has seized our politics and could even unduly influence our election (again).ps88
I’m talking about founder mode. A recently coined management style being celebrated by some venture capitalists, it embraces the notion that a company’s founder must make decisions unilaterally rather than partner with direct reports or frontline employees. All too often the extension of founder mode is to resist not only internal checks and balances but also those from the government.
I see founder mode as another expression of a creeping attraction to one-man rule in some corners of tech. (I use “man” intentionally, as only 3 percent of venture capital funding goes to solo female founders.) This neo-authoritarianism is nothing short of a rejection of the historical values that made Silicon Valley what it is today. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that a handful of the wealthiest and most powerful venture capitalists there are throwing their resources behind the re-election of Donald Trump.
This view of the world is the antithesis of what I most love about Silicon Valley, which has its roots in a rebellious anti-authoritarianism. In 1957 eight engineers quit Shockley Semiconductor and founded Fairchild Semiconductor, which built transistors and integrated circuits, because they were frustrated by their boss’s megalomaniacal refusal to listen to them. Then in 1968 two of those founders, frustrated by the way their bosses at Fairchild were treating them, quit to start a chipmaker called Intel.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENTIn that original recipe, venture capitalists invested in founders rebelling against established hierarchy and building great products. And when those rebels themselves became too hierarchical, venture capitalists turned to new founders aspiring to overtake the old order. When rebels became kings, they got deposed. Command and control kills innovation.
That history explains why, in the early days of Google, its founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, wanted to avoid becoming despotic bosses, no matter how much the company grew. At first they eliminated engineering manager roles, only to learn that chaos is just as bad as autocratic leadership. So they opted for checks and balances, electing to build management systems that systematically stripped unilateral decision-making authority from all managers — all the way up to the founders and chief executive. At Google the idea of one-person rule seemed illogical and bound to fail. Why hire the smartest people in the world, only to refuse steadfastly to listen to a word they say?
Subscribe to The Times to read as many articles as you like.ps88