The True Essence of "Founder Mode"

Paul Graham’s recent “Founder Mode” blog post has stirred up a lot of chatter and a lot of opinions in the startup world. Some folks think he’s advocating for micromanagement, while others say he’s oversimplifying things by presenting two extremes. But here’s how I see it: "Founder Mode" is about one thing—doing whatever it takes to win.

For me, being in Founder Mode is all about giving a shit—about everything. This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t hire talented managers (as PG suggests); in fact, you absolutely should. But when you do, your first and most important job is to be the champion of the vision, mission, and purpose of the company. It’s not about micromanaging for the sake of control. It’s about making sure every move, every decision, every action, and every strategy aligns with what the company needs to succeed.

Let’s be real: sometimes micromanaging is necessary. And that’s okay. Startups are hard. It is unlikely you’ll win. Every battle you engage in is David versus Goliath. If things aren’t lining up with the vision or the standards that you know are crucial to winning, you’ve got to step in. But the goal isn’t to hover over everyone’s shoulder. It’s to build a culture where everyone—from the top down—gives a shit.

Hiring the right people is key. Don’t just grab big-company execs because of their impressive, shiny resumes. You want doers—people who are ready to dive deep into the problem you’re solving, people who are champions of your vision, and who are relentless in finding solutions. You need people that give a shit.

Once you’ve got the right team, step back and let them do their thing. Micromanagement shouldn’t be your default mode but don’t hesitate to step in when things aren’t going as they should. As a founder, you have to stay deeply involved in the critical decisions that steer the company and you need to have opinions on everything else your company does. Sometimes you’ve got to make the tough, unpopular calls and hold your team to the highest standards. That’s your job. You are the most qualified to do these things. Others may seek consensus, or take the easy path. Some will put their future ahead of the company’s. That may be reasonable for them, but it’s not for you. To me, Founder Mode means giving a shit and doing what only you as the founder can reasonably do. Take that risk. Do things that don’t scale. Make unpopular decisions. Own failure and success.

If you feel like you have to micromanage every decision, every person, and everything, you aren’t in Founder Mode, you’re just a bad leader. If you can’t trust the people on your team to do what it takes for the company to win, or easily adjust their work based on your guidance, you are probably shitty at hiring, terrible at championing your vision, bad at motivating, and junk at managing. Don’t hide your failures behind “Founder Mode.”

At the end of the day, to me, being in Founder Mode means being stubborn about your principles and vision, caring more than anyone else about what your company is trying to achieve, and doing everything it takes to win. That might mean getting deep into the weeds of your business, or it might mean hiring well and getting out of the way. If you are relentless about championing the vision, if you create a culture of people who care, if you give ownership, and when you demand excellence, you are more likely to win.

The choice here is not Founder Mode versus Manager Mode. The choice is to give a shit or don’t give a shit. Building something great requires giving a shit. After that, there is no right or wrong way.

When I do it again

In what feels like a lifetime ago, I decided to build my first, real startup. From February 2010 to February 2014, I served as the co-Founder and CEO of a small company named CPUsage. Me and two amazing co-founders took a crazy idea, explored a big problem space, began building a prototype, raised venture capital, built a team, built a couple products, flirted with providing value to a market, and then failed miserably. Four years, about a million in outside funding, destroyed personal lives and finances of at least one co-founder, and we had nothing to show for it. No meaningful revenue, no product worth something to others, no acqui-hire.

These were the most enjoyable and educational years of my career! I loved every minute of it! I learned more than I imagine an MBA or any set of degrees could teach. I’m a better human for this experience, and a better professional. Failure and all.

I learned so much about so many things, and in this blog post today, I want to focus on what I learned about what it takes to be successful when starting a company. Specifically doing so with the intent to innovate, grow rapidly, and return outsized rewards to employees and investors….in other words, a startup.

I try to limit regret in my life, but I do seek opportunities to improve myself by learning from my past. Through my experiences co-founding and leading CPUsage from 2010-2014, here is some of what I’ll do differently next time I start a startup.

Go deeper with potential customers

In short, I became a Product Manager after CPUsage because I quickly realized that we failed in part due to one specific reason: we didn’t go deep enough with customer discovery. We talked to a bunch of people, there was no shortage of potential clients or simply just people to learn from. The problem is that we got too excited, too easily. We stayed at the top level of the problem, we didn’t dig deeper to understand the root of their problem or how truly painful it was. We heard what we wanted to hear, went back and built what we thought the potential customer wanted, and then they never used it.

There was clearly a problem, and it was painful. We just didn’t know exactly where the pain emanated from, which meant we couldn’t prescribe the right medicine. We sought what we wanted to hear, not what we needed to hear.

I became a Product Manager because I wanted to master customer discovery and make sure I was equipped to prevent this mistake again. I loved building software, but I wasn’t going to build truly great software until I figured this out. Big thanks to Todd Etchieson for believing in me and giving me that opportunity at New Relic!

The next time I build a startup, I’ll do what I’ve done as a Product Manager since CPUsage: be relentless with customer discovery, seek deep understanding of the problem space, and build products that are 10x better or 1/10th the cost of the alternative.

Have a REAL go-to-market plan

So it turns out that taking a product to market is more than posting about it on Twitter or Hacker News and hoping people will come use it. Who knew?! Through my experience at CPUsage, I learned that my world may seem big and important, but it is just a spec in the universe of software, technology, and the market I am going after.

We honestly had no plan, and no idea how to win customers. We were building a two-sided market and easily figured out how to capture the supply side, but didn’t tackle the demand side. Seems obvious now, but it was far from obvious then. Tell a few friends and it will take off, right?

The next time I start a company, I’ll think about go-to-market from day one. We’ll make demand capture and distribution an inherent aspect of the product. Just because you build it, doesn’t mean they will come.

Focus spending

I now know that in the early stages of a software startup, the most important thing to invest in is customer validation with product. There is little that you can spend money on that is as, or more important than, putting product in the hands of customers and prospects to learn from, and adapt to. Almost anything else is a distraction and likely doesn’t produce significant enterprise value.

Don’t hire sales people. There is no need for a CMO or even a marketing intern. It’s all about engineering at the pre-seed and seed stage. The co-founders can do the rest. Spend to learn, and learn through the eyes of your customers and prospects as they use (or don’t use) your product.

Seek accountability

If it isn’t obvious yet, I should tell you that my co-founders and I had never started a company before, never took funding, never built a real product outside of our day jobs. Not only did we need help, people to guide us, and hold us accountable…we didn’t even know we needed this. As the saying goes, we didn’t know what we didn’t know.

Within weeks our initial close of funding, we attended a portfolio event for our lead investor. For some reason, we thought this was the right time to ask our lead, “you gave us money but didn’t ask for a board seat, don’t you want one?” He probably laughed inside, and then told us that as a seed-stage company without a complete product or any customers, we didn’t need the overhead of a board. We should just focus on building our product, and let him know if/when we needed help.

We didn’t take him up on that offer enough. We talked to our investors frequently, but we were mostly on our own. We asked for help, but in hindsight we only asked for help a fraction of the time we should have, in part because we didn’t know we needed help.

We may not have needed a traditional board of directors at that point, but we certainly needed the accountability that a board with investors/outsiders provides, along with the sense of “in it together” that I believe board members share with founders.

When I do it again, I’ll ensure that I have a framework in place to hold myself more accountable. It may be a board with investors/outsiders in the early days, it may be advisors, it may be a peer group, it will probably be all of the above. Regardless of the form, I’ll seek accountability, asking others to say the things that are heard to hear, tell me when I am wrong, set high expectations, and ultimately walk with me on the journey. Business success is no one’s responsibility except the founders, but we can’t do it alone. That’s just human nature.

More goal setting

Especially in the early stages of a company, it’s simply impossible to plan very far into the future (you decide what “very far” means). That doesn’t mean you can’t plan, and those plans better be more specific than “build valuable things that people will pay for.” How will you know what the thing should be? How will you know when you’ve gotten here? How will you know what valuable means? I may not know what I need to do every day between now and ultimate business success, but I can predict with high degrees of certainty what questions need to be answered, and what milestones must be reached.

When I do it again, my co-founder(s) and I will drive our work from questions we know need to be answered, and milestones we believe need to be met. We’ll put short term and long term goals in front of ourselves. We’ll commit to doing achievable things in the near-term, then do them. We’ll create inflection points and forks in the road, and we’ll ask others to hold us accountable to these things. All this will be done while being firm on the vision and flexible on the details, giving ourselves room to be wrong, or change our minds, in service of the goal.

Fail faster

Did you catch this earlier in the post? About one million dollars and four years? As first-time founders, we falsely believed that stretching our money out as long as possible would give us the best opportunity to learn and build for success. We were so, so wrong! Our frugality meant we did less, in more time, and impacted our ability to learn quickly, from meaningful product development. Sure, we had 4 years to learn, but those learnings were each less valuable than they would have been had we gotten them in 12-18 months, instead of 48. In fact, we would have had a better chance at success had we spent the same amount of money over a shorter period of time. Building more, more iteratively, and more quickly would have created enterprise value. Both in the product itself and the trust we’d have built in our investors and customers. We would have had a better chance because we would have pivoted sooner, but also because we’d have more people believing in us and rooting us on, including ourselves.

We failed too slow because we made all the other mistakes listed above. We didn’t set specific enough short term goals and questions to answer. We didn’t have a framework to keep ourselves accountable to this work. We didn’t spend purposefully to develop products we could learn from. We had no clue how to get our product in the hands of customers. We didn’t really listen to the problem within the problem when speaking to the market or customers. All of these mistakes ate up time. Sure, they ate up money too, but most importantly they ate up time.


The above isn’t an exhaustive list of what I learned the first time I was an entrepreneur, nor is it a complete list of the things I’ll do differently. I am inspired not only by my experience as a first time, early stage entrepreneur, but also through my work in Product Management at New Relic, Pagerduty, and then Zenput. I also love to read and have found The Hard Thing About Hard Things by Ben Horowitz and Sprint by Jake Knapp & John Zeratsky to be incredible sources of inspiration and learning.

I’d also like to thank the people that gave me the opportunity to learn these things, and support me through the experience: Our investors (Ash, Ben, Eric, Omar, Damien), my co-founders (Matt and Shiv), our families (for me: Richard, Gayle, Kristin, Nate, Sabrina, and more), and our friends (including, but not limited to: Robert, Ken, Mike, Bill, Justin, Dionna, Shashi, and more).

Oh, and one last thing. I am doing it again. Now, today, this month, all this year, and next year! I can’t wait, not just to do it, but to do it better this time! Watch this space for more.

What is a startup?

Recently, I was talking about business with one of my co-workers. I enjoy chatting about innovation, strategy, products, and everything that has to do with commerce. In the middle of this conversation, I said something that prompted my co-worker to respond with something along the lines of "my brother worked at a startup that sold belts online...." Wait, what? A belt startup? I steered the conversation in that direction, and probed more into this belt startup. Had they reinvented the belt to be dramatically better than what we know today? Nope. Had they come up with a new manufacturing process that would revolutionize the belt market? Nada. Did they maybe come up with a business model that would allow them to dominate the market? Not at all. I guess they simply sell a wide variety of belts online, maybe they drop ship, maybe its fast-fashion.

What ensued was a friendly debate about the use of the word startup to define new companies. I argued this belt company is not a startup, my co-worker defended that it was.


The world is in an incredible cycle of innovation and entrepreneurship at the moment. I want to say that we are on a 10 year run, but on the macro scale its a lot longer, and a philosopher may say its a never ending run. Regardless of how you look at things, with more innovation comes more entrepreneurship, and over the past 10-20 years, more entrepreneurship has lead to more use of the term startup.

What is a startup, anyway? I mean, most of us could give an answer, but how specific would those answers be, and would we all agree?

Does it even matter? Absolutely not! I do, however, find it an interesting topic, and there are some very mild consequences to correct, or incorrect use of the term. Go into a bank for a loan, say you are a startup, and you'll get laughed out of the building. Walk into a venture capital firm and say you are a small business, and they'll laugh you out as well.

I believe that all startups begin as small businesses, but not all small businesses are startups. Let's explore!


When I first had this question, years before the debate about a belt company being a startup, the first thing I did was search for a definition that I could hang my beliefs on. You can find a whole lot of textbook definitions out there, some are meaningful and others just confuse the question even more. Then I came across the definition by Eric Ries, author of The Lean Startup (one of my favorite books on startups, entrepreneurship, and innovation):

A startup is a human institution designed to deliver a new product or service under conditions of extreme uncertainty.

This definition, short and to the point, is spot on. There are two subtle things in this definition that stand out. First, the mention of something being new, not doing the same thing others do. Then, the requirement that the conditions be extremely uncertain.

When I have this conversation with others, I tend to use a very simple example as a test for this definition: a bagel shop. Their product, bagels, is not new. Been around for a few hundred years and consumers have clear expectations of what a bagel is. If you are starting a bagel shop, you likely aren't creating anything new. You also aren't entering a market of extreme uncertainty. The market demand is well known, or can be. You know how many people are in the area around the shop, what your competition is, and more. The knowledge is broad and relatively easy to obtain.

So, if I open a bagel shop, am I a startup founder? No way! I'd be a small business entrepreneur. Being a small business owner is a difficult task, one that most couldn't or wouldn't have the guts to do. I applaud these folks, and admire their work. They are an important to the economy, and good for the community. They aren't startup founders though.

I do think that Eric Ries is missing one thing in his definition. I believe that in addition to the product being new and the conditions being extremely uncertain, startups also have the potential for massive and hyper growth, with the economies of scale to turn an investment into outsized returns.

Now, lets take a look at a company that I would define as a startup, Tesla. At first glance, you may be thinking that a car company isn't new, and the market isn't uncertain. However, I disagree! When Tesla started, they were in fact creating something new, a mainstream electric car, and more specifically, an electric sports car targeted at wealthy buyers. The idea that a high price sports car could be electric was new and wild. The idea that an electric car could have broad appeal flew in the face of the ugly and underwhelming electric cars that had hit the market before. The plan to then create other models of electric cars for the mass market while remaining sexy, and at affordable prices, was down right crazy when Tesla started. The newness of the product is also connected to the conditions of extreme uncertainty. Tesla cars would have just a fraction of the range of a gas powered car, something customers may struggle with. There was no charging infrastructure, like there is a network of gas stations. Setting up automotive manufacturing is an expensive, upfront investment that may not pay off. In 2003 when Tesla was started, the economy was still coming out of the recession from the dot-com bubble bursting and 9/11 changing America forever. Gas prices were actually low in 2003, so Tesla couldn't count on that for help.

Tesla started by doing something completely new. They were doing so under the circumstances of extreme uncertainty. And they had the opportunity to create immense wealth through rapid growth. They currently do about $12 billion USD in annual revenue, with a market value of over $50 billion USD, making them about as valuable as the big three America automakers, in just 15 years compared with the 100+ years Tesla's competitors had to grow into that valuation.

The founders and early executives of Tesla were taking a risk that no small business owner can compare with. Their likelihood of failing was high, and being successful would require very specific skills, many that can't be taught. If they were successful, the reward would be at levels that most can't fathom.

The bagel shop owner and electric sports car company founder are both entrepreneurs, and should both be applauded. They don't, however, face the same job, the same risks, or the same reward. One can walk into a bank for a loan, the other can't. One can build a nice business that throws off cash to make them wealthy, the other can make tens of thousand of others wealthy and change an industry in the process.


Nothing would make me happier than if you, the reader, were thinking to yourself at this point that a bagel shop could be a startup, if they did things differently. I love to think that any and every industry is ripe for the type of disruption that Elon Musk brought to the automotive world with Tesla. Its not that online belt retailers and bagel shops can't be startups, its that they typically aren't startups.

So, let me know when someone revolutionizes the world through bagels or belts, and I'll update this post. That said, I'll never equate being a small business owner with being a startup founder.

Solve problems with "why"

In my last post, I talked about the importance of having a "hair on fire, pay anything to solve" problem when you are building a product or business. For a lot of entrepreneurs, this is hard to get to. You'd think it would be easy, but it's not and I get why. Entrepreneurs have passion, they have ideas, they have drive. All important qualities and a great way to start, but those qualities often lead to blinders that keep you from focusing externally on the customer and the problem you can solve faster/better/cheaper.

There is actually a very simple technique to help you find the real problem customer's will pay you to solve. It's a technique that comes from conflict resolution/problem solving. The technique is called "5 whys" and it's the idea of asking why 5 times. The theory goes, within 5 questions of "why," you'll get to the root of the problem or issue.

Let's look at an example that is common is many of your personal lives:

Your significant other (S/O): "I'm mad at you."

You: "why?"

S/O: "Because you didn't take out the trash."

You: "Why does that make you mad?"

S/O: "Because I shouldn't have to ask you to do some of the work around the house."

You: "Why is that a problem now when it hasn't been before?"

S/O: "Because you know I am working long hours this week at work, and the kids started school again this week so there is so much to keep up on."

Based on that interaction, with just 3 questions, you've learned that the problem isn't that you didn't take out the trash, the problem is that you didn't recognize your significant other's need for more help. They don't necessarily need you to take out the trash, they need you to have some empathy, understand the situation and be proactive.

If your significant other was a customer, they wouldn't pay you to take out the trash, but they would pay you to have empathy, understanding, and be proactive. The problem isn't the trash! Had you not asked why, you'd think it was the trash. Had you not asked why 3 times, you wouldn't know the real problem is empathy, understanding, and being proactive.

At this point, you might think I'm a bit crazy with this example, but it does have a direct relationship to you and your customers. The first problem you discuss is probably NOT the problem they'll pay you to solve. The problem they'll pay you to solve is often deeper, and understanding the real problem will lead to significant business and financial success.

The best way for me to drive this point home is to share a real life example. I'm lucky to be called an advisor to an exciting startup named TalentIQ. They are in the big data space, and can be described as a "people intelligence" company. They keep databases about people up-to-date with current and relevant information that can't be easily found, verified, or understood otherwise. They sell this value to talent recruiting, sales, and financial organizations. The product that customers pay for today is not the product the founders started with.

Sean and Henry originally recognized that hiring top talent is hard, in part because the best talent already has a job and isn't applying for a new one. So they built a sourcing tool, a search product that recruiters could use to easily find the best talent based on specific criteria, regardless of employment status. They had success with this product and dozens of customers, some household names, started using the software.

The sales were coming in, but not at the rate they wanted. So they continued to interview their customers, and asked "what makes your job as talent recruiters difficult?" When they got an answer, they continued to ask "why?" They dug deeper. Then they learned that while customers did indeed have a need for their original software, they actually had a bigger problem. They had stale databases with thousands of past applicants, and the perfect candidate for a new role may be in that database. However, the information in that database was likely wrong...if for no other reason than it was old...out of date. Even better, TalentIQ's technology could easily solve that problem, it was an easy shift and was inline with their original vision.

Sean and Henry had their "ah-ha" moment, because they had the perseverance and humble nature to go beyond the surface, and dig deeper. They asked why. Over and over again. The sales started rolling in, at a rate even greater than they had imagined. Today they enjoy a rapidly growing business, with mind-blowing revenues that most companies would envy for the first year of their existence.

What Sean and Henry did may seem simple, but it's hard. Really hard. As entrepreneurs, we have to be open to changing the original product we envisioned, in order to meet our customers needs. We also need to remain unsatisfied with initial traction. It's easy for a few people, a few customers, to say our product is good. Great business aren't built on a few customers, they are built on hundreds, thousands, even millions. You won't get to that level unless you are willing to ask "why," over and over again. Get out of your own way, dig deep, and get to the real problem.

Don't just take my word for it, or the example of TalentIQ. Look at other companies. Uber's most popular product is UberX, but their original idea was town cars/limos driven by professional drivers (Uber Black). Twitter started out as a group text messaging concept, but I doubt anyone uses their text messages features today. These examples go on and on, as do the examples of companies that were never smart enough to dig deeper. Which category will you be in?

The startup problem

Recently, I had the rare and exhilarating opportunity to meet with 7 different startups in a single day. I heard seven product pitches. Seven teams of entrepreneurs so passionate about their companies, they are wiling to risk it all. Do you know what I didn't hear? Seven problem statements. Seven reasons the world needed what they were building. Seven reasons that the risk was worth it.

Its not that none of the seven were solving a problem, its that some of them didn't (or couldn't) articulate it. Instead, they focused on the solution. The cool new thing they were building. The software that would make something happen. Frequently jumping right into the what and how, without the why.

If you are a startup entrepreneur, your #1 job is to passionately and convincingly explain the problem you are solving. Can't do that? Stop everything you are doing, and obsess over this requirement. Your goal should be a 1-3 sentence problem statement. So clear that someone not familiar with the industry you are in, can understand it. I don't care if you are in the nuclear physics or open source software industries, you should be able to clearly explain the problem to the average person you encounter in your life.

Why does it matter? Because as an entrepreneur, you are always selling. Not just selling to your customers, selling to everyone. Selling the opportunity to investors and potential employees. Selling board members, mentors, and advisors on helping you. Selling your spouse on why its worth the risk to put it all on the line for this. Sell your friends on the reason you haven't seen them in ages. Selling the stranger at the cocktail party on the fact that you actually do important work, and aren't crazy.

Now, if you are a high growth startup entrepreneur, knowing the problem you are solving and passionately telling everyone about it is just the first step. The next step is to make sure you are solving a 10x problem. A 10x problem is one you can solve 10 times better than the alternatives, or solve the problem for 1/10th the cost of your competitors. You sell your product for 20% less than the competition? So what, thats not enough. Your product is 30% faster than the competition? Get out of here, not good enough.

Your customers have an alternative to your product. Maybe its not a direct competitor, but at the very least the alternative is the status quo. Doing nothing or continuing the way they've always dealt with the problem.

Now, you are asking them to make a change, to switch to your product instead.  The price of your product isn't the only cost to the customer. There is a switching cost. Not just the real costs to switch, but the inferred costs as well. The cost associated with taking a chance on you, the risk that you'll actually deliver on what you say you will. That you'll be around in the future and be able to grow with them. That you'll be the partner they need.

Customers won't switch to a startup for 20% cheaper or 30% faster. You need to be 10x better.

In my next post, I'll share with you a crazy simple technique to help get past the surface an opportunity, and down to the 10x problem.