Founder mode for the rest of us

Why micromanagement is a skill worth having

Hey there! I just sat down for a really interesting conversation with

Aakash Gupta

on his new podcast. We covered a lot of ground and talked about some hot takes like: how to communicate a great product strategy visually, why execution often matters more than strategy, and why it’s better to start with a roadmap than goals.

We also talked about micromanagement and why its an important skill for leaders to master — something that’s timely with Paul Graham’s recent post on Founder Mode. I hope you’ll take a listen. More on micromanagement below…

Write a Great Product Strategy: Lessons from Ravi Mehta | Former CPO at Tinder, Director at Meta, VP at TripAdvisor

Brian Chesky recently did an event for YC where he talked about scaling himself as a leader. Initially, he followed the common advice to hire good people and turn the reins over to them. He saw the company getting off track, but couldn’t steer as quickly and decisively as he wanted. The advice wasn’t working.

Brian made radical changes to pilot the company more effectively. He thinned out management layers and got involved in the critical details. Paul Graham talked about this as turning off “Manager Mode” and turning on “Founder Mode”:

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.

Tapping your inner founder

There’s been a backlash to Founder Mode, and I can see why. The idea that only founders can be effective leaders smacks of superiority.

In reality, the vast majority of market cap in the world is managed and grown by professional managers. It’s not true that company-defining leaders need to be there on day 0. Tim Cook and Satya Nadella prove that in spades.

All leaders need the a level of ownership, speed, decisiveness, and fluency with details that defines a good founder.

Great founders act with an extreme level of ownership, speed, decisiveness, and fluency with details. Every leader can benefit from the founder mindset.

The challenge is: How do you achieve that while also building the high agency teams necessary to scale? There are two opposing forces to consider:

1. Leaders want to feel a sense of control — that their team is heading towards an outcome valuable to the company.

2. Teams want to feel a sense of autonomy — that they are trusted to do their best work.

As any good professional manager knows, we need a 2x2 matrix to really understand this:

Scaleable Leadership is the ideal — we, as leaders, feel things are heading in the right direction and our teams feel empowered to do their best work. In order to scale themselves, leaders must be in this quadrant most of the time.

If things aren't going well, good leaders exert more control to get the team on track. This isn't a bad thing — effective leaders like Brian Chesky are known for micromanaging. And this isn’t just limited to startup founders:

“The right way is the hard way. The show was successful because I micromanaged it: every word, every line, every take, every edit, every casting. That’s my way of life.” — Jerry Seinfeld

But, micromanagement can go wrong. New managers often end up micro-mismanaging. They take away the team's autonomy, yet still don't feel in control of the team's progress.

Others fall into the trap of thinking micromanagement is always bad. They avoid exerting control. They give the team autonomy even when they are not fully confident the team is heading in the right direction. The hands-off leader is not doing anyone any favors. They let the team go merrily down the wrong path — destroying value for them, their team, and their company.

Getting better at micromanagement

Selective micromanagement is a skill worth mastering. There are three things that differentiate effective micromanagement from stereotypical micromanagement. (i.e., micro-mismanagement).

Selective micromanagement is:

1. Situationally appropriate — Micromanage only when it matters and only when other approaches have failed or time is of the essence.

2. Temporary — Think about micromanagement as a temporary measure designed to get the team back on track and give the team the context they need to stay on track.

3. Effective — Micromanage only when you a) have a plan you believe in and b) can communicate that plan clearly.

My friend, Sanjay Vakil, reminded me a good example of this from our time at Tripadvisor. Often when a key business leader left the company, Steve Kaufer (Tripadvisor’s CEO) would step into the vacant role for the 6-9 months it would take to find a replacement. During that time, he would fill the leadership void, get deep into the details of that business unit, keep it on track, understand its dynamics, and become a more effective judge of candidates to run it next. Steve’s approach was situationally appropriate (helping a key business unit during a critical time), temporary, and effective.

Good micromanagement can take many forms:

• Filling information gaps — Giving teams the context and direction they need to be more effective.

• Changing tasks — Being more prescriptive about what people should be working on.

• Making key decisions — Making the decisions that have the team stuck or misguided.

• Co-creating — Working live with the team on important deliverables.

• Active coaching — Providing real-time feedback, mentorship, and support.

• Facilitating alignment — Using your position / political capital to help teams get alignment with stakeholders and execs.

Yes, but what about the people being micromanaged?

I’ve never met someone who wants to be setup to fail… even when they have a lot of autonomy in the process. Micromanagement gets a bad rap because of:

1. Micro-mismanagement — managers jumping into the details without increasing the chance of success.

2. Overuse of micromanagement — managers who never give their team the context, trust, and autonomy needed to do their best work.

Good micromanagement is a way to support people when things are off course and the stakes are high. The alternative is to let people fail when it matters most — which is just another form of workplace toxicity.

The best leaders see micromanagement as an important skill & a necessary tool. Like all tools, it can be over-relied on or used at the wrong times. But, effective micromanagement is essential in the right situations.

Founder Mode, engage!