The Great Founder Whim

Whims of founders and the impact of their apparent urgency is a phenomenon that is often complained about and yet one that remains unresolved even as organisations become much larger. It’s a problem because the singular influence of a founder can impact the direction an organisation takes almost seemingly at will. And it’s often a ‘power’ founders don’t even know they’re wielding.

The scenario tends to take the form of senior managers suddenly changing course or having to readjust their priority list based on a quiet nudge from their founder CEO. The nudge may not always follow the required direction of previously set strategy, but it is always conveyed as vital. This leads to the employee dropping everything to perform this task. The consequence of this is disorientation, resentment, annoyance and a whole stream of organisational impacts further down the chain.

Why does it happen? It happens because especially in newer organisations, founders wield an unusual amount of power derived from their creative position, their unique knowledge set in a business they’ve setup and often their charisma (be it through extroversion or introversion). That confluence of factors creates an individual who often is persistent and difficult to ignore. And ignoring them can appear to have consequences for someone’s career.

For the founder however, having someone urgently change course is actually the last thing they want. Often they want someone to stand up to them, to challenge their chaos and disorganisation. And through compliance by the employee rather than challenge, a vicious cycle is started. If this type of behaviour is allowed to continue often then the organisation can tend toward chaos

And why do founders do it. Founders do it because their heads can be a lonely place; even with co-founders. They are doers by nature. They are used to transforming thought into action, usually quickly. They struggle to understand that not only do others not do the same, but that it isn’t always useful to do the same. That they hired people in the first place to take a calmer, slower, longer look at the building process. That these strategies and actions have been agreed far in advance and need time and action to bear fruit. That intervening is often counterproductive, whereas monitoring, scrutiny and appropriate challenge helps to guide to a better end goal. A shared goal at that.

I’ve often seen, done and helped founders consider the impact of “diving in”, of micromanaging more than capable managers because they’ve responded to a voice in their head. They’ve acted on a whim because the compulsion to act is underwritten by an almost existential fear of not acting. Employees shouldn’t be expected to understand this pathopsychology; the best ones do though.

For founders, sometimes taking a deep breath, noting that you made your best decisions in quieter moments and you hired great people to carry out those decisions is a smarter course of action.

The best things take time, and like the sweetest tasting cakes left in the oven to bake, you meddle at your peril.