Brian Chesky

The problem with that, though, is that once you subdivide the company, the company starts rolling in different directions. Now you have even more bureaucracy because the groups don't want to work together because they're incentivized to work on different things. And they might not be totally compatible anymore. Now 10 teams can have 10 different tech stacks. They don't actually fit together.

The problem with that, though, is that once you subdivide the company, the company starts rolling in different directions. Now you have even more bureaucracy because the groups don't want to work together because they're incentivized to work on different things. And they might not be totally compatible anymore. Now 10 teams can have 10 different tech stacks. They don't actually fit together.

The problem with that, though, is that once you subdivide the company, the company starts rolling in different directions. Now you have even more bureaucracy because the groups don't want to work together because they're incentivized to work on different things. And they might not be totally compatible anymore. Now 10 teams can have 10 different tech stacks. They don't actually fit together.

A local decision that might make sense for your team might not make sense for the company, right? So this is a thing. The next thing is that these general managers are incentivized typically in output goals that you don't usually run on P&Ls. They run on like impact, growth. So they have to advocate for as many resources as possible. This is what we call politics. You're advocating for yourself.

A local decision that might make sense for your team might not make sense for the company, right? So this is a thing. The next thing is that these general managers are incentivized typically in output goals that you don't usually run on P&Ls. They run on like impact, growth. So they have to advocate for as many resources as possible. This is what we call politics. You're advocating for yourself.

A local decision that might make sense for your team might not make sense for the company, right? So this is a thing. The next thing is that these general managers are incentivized typically in output goals that you don't usually run on P&Ls. They run on like impact, growth. So they have to advocate for as many resources as possible. This is what we call politics. You're advocating for yourself.

And so suddenly groups like, they start going in many different directions. And because the company's going in many different directions, oversight becomes more difficult. When oversight gets more difficult, now there's this sense there's less accountability. You have people that are crappy and there's no consequence. So that makes people feel like it doesn't matter. This sets in complacency.

And so suddenly groups like, they start going in many different directions. And because the company's going in many different directions, oversight becomes more difficult. When oversight gets more difficult, now there's this sense there's less accountability. You have people that are crappy and there's no consequence. So that makes people feel like it doesn't matter. This sets in complacency.

And so suddenly groups like, they start going in many different directions. And because the company's going in many different directions, oversight becomes more difficult. When oversight gets more difficult, now there's this sense there's less accountability. You have people that are crappy and there's no consequence. So that makes people feel like it doesn't matter. This sets in complacency.

And this is, I think, what ends up happening at big companies. The big thing that I said about founder mode, and this is something I've said for four years, is it's not about... Paul Graham coined it founder mode. I think it's a good name. I think it's very catchy. I could not have made something as viral as Paul Graham. But there is a downside to the name. The downside name is now it's viewed.

And this is, I think, what ends up happening at big companies. The big thing that I said about founder mode, and this is something I've said for four years, is it's not about... Paul Graham coined it founder mode. I think it's a good name. I think it's very catchy. I could not have made something as viral as Paul Graham. But there is a downside to the name. The downside name is now it's viewed.

And this is, I think, what ends up happening at big companies. The big thing that I said about founder mode, and this is something I've said for four years, is it's not about... Paul Graham coined it founder mode. I think it's a good name. I think it's very catchy. I could not have made something as viral as Paul Graham. But there is a downside to the name. The downside name is now it's viewed.

First of all, people don't know founder mode is they think it means swagger. I remember a tweet said, like, I'm going founder mode in this burrito. I don't know what that means. I think people think it means the founder swagger, I don't give a fuck, I'm going in, I'm kicking ass. That's kind of what it turned into. And only founders have that. And that wasn't the message.

First of all, people don't know founder mode is they think it means swagger. I remember a tweet said, like, I'm going founder mode in this burrito. I don't know what that means. I think people think it means the founder swagger, I don't give a fuck, I'm going in, I'm kicking ass. That's kind of what it turned into. And only founders have that. And that wasn't the message.

First of all, people don't know founder mode is they think it means swagger. I remember a tweet said, like, I'm going founder mode in this burrito. I don't know what that means. I think people think it means the founder swagger, I don't give a fuck, I'm going in, I'm kicking ass. That's kind of what it turned into. And only founders have that. And that wasn't the message.

If I could summarize founder mode in a couple sentences... It's being in the details. It's that great leadership is presence, not absence. It's about a leader being in the details. And if you as a leader aren't in the details, guess what? Your leaders aren't in the details and their leaders aren't in the details.

If I could summarize founder mode in a couple sentences... It's being in the details. It's that great leadership is presence, not absence. It's about a leader being in the details. And if you as a leader aren't in the details, guess what? Your leaders aren't in the details and their leaders aren't in the details.

If I could summarize founder mode in a couple sentences... It's being in the details. It's that great leadership is presence, not absence. It's about a leader being in the details. And if you as a leader aren't in the details, guess what? Your leaders aren't in the details and their leaders aren't in the details.

And one day you're going to wake up and you have 50-year-olds managing 40-year-olds, managing 30-year-olds, managing people two years out of college, doing all the work with no oversight. And you have these four unnecessary layers. You have no experts in the company. So the antidote to this is to try to be as functional as possible. We are a functional organization.

And one day you're going to wake up and you have 50-year-olds managing 40-year-olds, managing 30-year-olds, managing people two years out of college, doing all the work with no oversight. And you have these four unnecessary layers. You have no experts in the company. So the antidote to this is to try to be as functional as possible. We are a functional organization.