Thank you for talking about the hard stuff! We live through these leaders, their style and can never articulate the way you did. There is truth, candor and self reflection.
Working with benevolent dictators is like endurance sport. You suffer in the moment & it's hard to be zen about said suffering. But when you turn around and look back at how far you've come, you're astonished at how you were able to do that.
--> letting (too many) MBAs run the show is the first mistake. And don't let them become 'product managers' - please ;)
A lot of things resonate, yes.
But the 'benevolent dictator' only scales so much. Sure, great for shareholder value in the short term - but NVIDIA will not run (and provide) without Jensen and his style of running the company ( -> read 'The Nvidia Way').
If we agree on the benevolent dictator, we also should take into account that this form or period of running things will only go so far. Even if one manages burnout, it is time-bound by the founders wel.. lifetime. Or the duration to stay with the company.
But maybe this is actually the way to look at it: Organizations go and need to go through the different journeys that the pendulum travels from one extreme to another - 'benevolent dictator on one side' and 'participatory governance' on the other.
On one side, fast, to the point, risk-taking taking and a culture that is not for everyone. On the other side, many voices decide, decisions are decentralized, things are slower, but a culture that might attract a wider scope of talent.
The Apple of Tim Cook is different from the one Jobs ran. Jobs was one side of the pendulum, Cook is the other. One had an edge and provided innovation through taking risks. The other one managed, milked this innovation and scaled into absurd valuations. But also the company lost its innovator edge. I don;t think one is better or worse than the other. Rather they need each other (?)..
Perhaps it is time now to find a leader of the 'benevolent dictator' to enable the next chapter. Imagine what another Jobs type of CEO could do with the power, scale, and reach of the today's version of the company.
Great article and I like that you say something that is slightly uncomfortable. But- I don’t agree with this ”The best founders are unreasonable about product, deeply reasonable about people.”
I think people that are unreasonable about project often are really shitty at being reasonable about people.
Just a personal observation. I like to appreciate leaders like this anyway, people can bring something to the table without being huggable
This resonates; benevolent dictatorships in visionary companies can cut through the noise and provide real direction. When a founder is firm about the product yet deeply supportive of their team, creativity and impact thrive. It’s not about democracy but about leadership that empowers through clarity rather than indecision.
How does a Steve Jobs fit into this definition then? Sure, you could say his obsessiveness around design without compromised build excellent products which eventually grew to become an excellent company (the two are different).
But the very same person was a disastrous dictatorship model when it came to his own health. Rejecting the best professional advice of his oncologist, he made the dictatorial decision to outsmart science himself and eat nothing but carrots for months... eventually dying from a treatable cancer and orphaning his daughter over dictatorial stubbornness.
Dictatorships can just as easily create empire-destroying as they do empire-creating organizations. Unlike a 'democracy' where a minority might cry out about the giant sinkhole ahead of them, a dictator will merely fire that person and surround themselves with a version of reality that most pleases their belief system.
"Circular debates about priorities that produced nothing but calendar invites for follow-up meetings. ... I wanted to scream. Just tell me what matters. Make the damn decision. ... That torn PRD suddenly made sense. I'd rather have a founder who knows exactly what they want ..."
You're an incompetent PM—or maybe just a PM in title, without knowing what being a PM truly means.
You need to drive progress within limited resources (or choose not to progress at all). And when you hit the limits, you need to make real decisions—not just choices, but decisive judgment calls.
If you can't fulfill your responsibilities as a PM and instead wish for a founder who knows exactly what they want—then you're not doing your job.
Reporting that a project should not proceed is also an important role of a PM.
This is great (especially amongst the sea of BS spewed on LinkedIn) and rings incredibly true
Truth.
👀
Thank you for talking about the hard stuff! We live through these leaders, their style and can never articulate the way you did. There is truth, candor and self reflection.
>> That's the thing about unreasonable people. They're often right.
Maybe :-) this is a strong assertion. I will confirm from personal experience that
>> People who are often right are also often unreasonable to the majority.
I love the clarity and honesty in your words btw.
Working with benevolent dictators is like endurance sport. You suffer in the moment & it's hard to be zen about said suffering. But when you turn around and look back at how far you've come, you're astonished at how you were able to do that.
'Make decisions that horrify MBAs.'
--> letting (too many) MBAs run the show is the first mistake. And don't let them become 'product managers' - please ;)
A lot of things resonate, yes.
But the 'benevolent dictator' only scales so much. Sure, great for shareholder value in the short term - but NVIDIA will not run (and provide) without Jensen and his style of running the company ( -> read 'The Nvidia Way').
If we agree on the benevolent dictator, we also should take into account that this form or period of running things will only go so far. Even if one manages burnout, it is time-bound by the founders wel.. lifetime. Or the duration to stay with the company.
But maybe this is actually the way to look at it: Organizations go and need to go through the different journeys that the pendulum travels from one extreme to another - 'benevolent dictator on one side' and 'participatory governance' on the other.
On one side, fast, to the point, risk-taking taking and a culture that is not for everyone. On the other side, many voices decide, decisions are decentralized, things are slower, but a culture that might attract a wider scope of talent.
The Apple of Tim Cook is different from the one Jobs ran. Jobs was one side of the pendulum, Cook is the other. One had an edge and provided innovation through taking risks. The other one managed, milked this innovation and scaled into absurd valuations. But also the company lost its innovator edge. I don;t think one is better or worse than the other. Rather they need each other (?)..
Perhaps it is time now to find a leader of the 'benevolent dictator' to enable the next chapter. Imagine what another Jobs type of CEO could do with the power, scale, and reach of the today's version of the company.
This is awesome
Great article and I like that you say something that is slightly uncomfortable. But- I don’t agree with this ”The best founders are unreasonable about product, deeply reasonable about people.”
I think people that are unreasonable about project often are really shitty at being reasonable about people.
Just a personal observation. I like to appreciate leaders like this anyway, people can bring something to the table without being huggable
How does one find founders and people who are this obsessive??
This resonates; benevolent dictatorships in visionary companies can cut through the noise and provide real direction. When a founder is firm about the product yet deeply supportive of their team, creativity and impact thrive. It’s not about democracy but about leadership that empowers through clarity rather than indecision.
How does a Steve Jobs fit into this definition then? Sure, you could say his obsessiveness around design without compromised build excellent products which eventually grew to become an excellent company (the two are different).
But the very same person was a disastrous dictatorship model when it came to his own health. Rejecting the best professional advice of his oncologist, he made the dictatorial decision to outsmart science himself and eat nothing but carrots for months... eventually dying from a treatable cancer and orphaning his daughter over dictatorial stubbornness.
Dictatorships can just as easily create empire-destroying as they do empire-creating organizations. Unlike a 'democracy' where a minority might cry out about the giant sinkhole ahead of them, a dictator will merely fire that person and surround themselves with a version of reality that most pleases their belief system.
A groupthink of one is still groupthink.
"Circular debates about priorities that produced nothing but calendar invites for follow-up meetings. ... I wanted to scream. Just tell me what matters. Make the damn decision. ... That torn PRD suddenly made sense. I'd rather have a founder who knows exactly what they want ..."
You're an incompetent PM—or maybe just a PM in title, without knowing what being a PM truly means.
You need to drive progress within limited resources (or choose not to progress at all). And when you hit the limits, you need to make real decisions—not just choices, but decisive judgment calls.
If you can't fulfill your responsibilities as a PM and instead wish for a founder who knows exactly what they want—then you're not doing your job.
Reporting that a project should not proceed is also an important role of a PM.
Philosopher king of the office.
And if this was scaled to nation/society level, Plato's idea about Philosopher-Kings would fit well
Founder DNA decoded and expectations set. Great writeup.
🫡