I worked at Anthropic, and I wouldn't attribute much to the structure itself – so I'm wary of using it as a positive example here.
I do attribute a lot to specific people. Concretely, to much of the intitial team, who they recruited on the research/infra side, and some very close personal relationships within research/infra. That dynamic, paired with their unwillingness to accede to something against their values, is what I credit for some atypical decisions and outcomes [1].
Things regulary go "corrupt" in parts of the company; it's hard to scale without importing culture from big tech. Sometimes, the defense was ICs escalating issues, Dario talking to ICs, and then shaking things up.
But this process takes time, and it doesn't lead to a full reversal; a bad/misaligned hire has reverberating impacts. Many folks are still driven by values (even if their values are not your values!), but scaling dynamics seem to be evolving like any other org – just at a higher employee count and revenue numbers.
I do place trust in specific people who work at Anthropic, but I wouldn't place trust in Anthropic the organization. It's an organization that's wont to change, regardless of its structure.
Your comment is very astute. A structure is like a shell. It can only protect what is within. It does not cause what's within to be vital, healthy, or unhealthy. But if you think that the courage that Dario has regularly shown would be possible with a conventional "best practices" structure, I think you're kidding yourself.
> If you think that the courage that Dario has regularly shown would be possible with a conventional "best practices" structure, I think you're kidding yourself.
Is there something that happened which you don't think would have come to pass with a standard PBC/C-Corp (without the LTBT)? I'm trying to think of one, but nothing is coming to mind.
I think the structure attracted many people to Anthropic (e.g. an RSP that could only be overridden by the LTBT), but I'm not sure it has demonstrated a practical impact.
As an aside, I think a lot about this problem too! But the answers that don't reduce to something like "the people, and the people to whom they give power" seem to break down when I look closely.
I was at Google when it pulled out of China. GP's post reminds me a lot of early Google - it wasn't evil because there were people in high places, who were critical to its operations, who cared deeply about doing the right thing, and as a result other people who cared about doing the right thing felt like they had cover, and people who were willing to do the wrong thing to hit a short-term number found that they were marginalized. It changed slowly, one departure at a time, as the wrong people got into positions of power and started providing cover to people willing to do the wrong thing. A lot of it also had to do with declining market power: when Google was universally on top, they felt like they could do the right thing without serious negative consequences, but when they were fighting for control of a market, they felt they had to make compromises lest some other firm (being honest: Facebook) would end up in power and do the wrong thing anyway.
Unfortunately there doesn't really seem to be a cure for institutional decay. Once unethical people get in power, they hire other unethical people, and then you're just stuck in Game of Thrones. You have to go quit and found another company, and single-mindedly keep all those people away, kinda like Anthropic did when they left OpenAI.
Yeah, I lean towards the structure not being the cause of the outcome here (i.e. if you rotated the governance structure of Anthropic and OpenAI, I think the decision would likely be the same).
If they made that decision and it destroyed revenue, I could see an alternate timeline where a standard C-Corp + board with non-founder control may have ousted leadership. But that wasn't the situation for OpenAI or Google either, and their leadership still made a different decision.
> But if you think that the courage that Dario has regularly shown would be possible with a conventional "best practices" structure, I think you're kidding yourself.
With respect to OP (who has a unique vantage from inside), I do agree with this on principle. When there are uncommon outcomes, there must be uncommon structure imho. A "good structure" is like oxygen, water, or peace: When it's well-maintained and well-distributed, one might not even notice it's there, nor spend much time being grateful for it. It's banal, but "what do you mean? isn't this just how things would always have been?" is both beautiful and tragic.
Imho if we could figure out how to have a "loud peace" (in all the ways that this might mean), we'd have figured out an important way of sustaining the world and ourselves.
The structure requires maintenance and that is done by an individual or individuals. The real reasons a good company stays good is because the leadership stays good. When the leadership begins to disengage or leaves or changes in some way then the structure will begin to break down. You can't fix it with a "better" structure. It will decay over time unless someone is actively maintaining it.
I get the sense you were feeling at odds with my framing? I wonder if it's that you're picking up that I believe "structure" is above any one person or set of people. In my conception, leadership is just part of structure, a key maintainer. Leadership are pieces of the structure, but subordinate in scale. They sometimes seek outside help in shaping structure (e.g., ppl like eries), and the structure becomes like another passive actor, not simply "leadership's doing". Leadership are key players taking care of the structure, but they are just one set of players, and in some structures, non-leadership employees play an outsized role (often because leadership knew enough to step back). Sometimes the role of leadership if "fucking right off" in certain domains. Regardless, the structure then guides behaviour of all within it, and hopefully the structure also maintains us, at least as much as we maintain it.
I'm stating the above as if it's universally true, but it's just my take. I'd be curious to know if any parts give you strong YES or NO feelings, if you are open to share your gut reaction. Blunt responses welcome
Having values doesn't mean they're "the right" values nor the same as your values.
Regardless, it's still atypical in the context of an American company, and it can help explain the differences between Anthropic and its peers. That doesn't mean I agree with their decisions or that they're "the right" decisions, but I think it's a helpful framing in which to understand them.
It will be interesting to see how many of those companies remain "incorruptible". Your new book seems a bit like a sequel to Jim Collins's 2001 book Good to Great. Several of the "great" companies including Circuit City, Fannie Mae, and Wells Fargo later ran into serious problems. And from an investor perspective, as a group they have underperformed the S&P 500.
> And from an investor perspective, as a group they have underperformed the S&P 500.
This should be kind of obvious -- if they are avoiding doing awful things in the name of money, then they are leaving something on the table. You can't have your cake and eat it too. This is why the real solution is some kind of governance/regulation, because otherwise the market incentivizes being awful.
I doubt there is a statistical correlation between stock market performance and "avoiding doing awful things," though obviously we would need some way to quantify "avoiding doing awful things" before we can evaluate this hypothesis.
If the definition of "awful" is broad enough, I imagine most public companies will fall in the "awful" bucket, regardless of their performance. If "awful" is going to mean something truly extraordinarily bad like dumping mercury into a well or whatever, I would still guess there is no correlation as I've read horrifying stories of corporate behavior at companies with mediocre stock performance.
well, eric's book tries to make the point that these good companies DO overperform the market. after reading the book this past week, im not convinced. feels like heavy selection bias.
Actually you can have your cake and eat it too. Market incentives aren't awful in most cases. The worst incentives are actually stock standard owner/manager misalignment (or "principal agent problem") whereby the agents are short term oriented because they are comped that way.
I want to appreciate you for this comment, even though I disagree with it, because this is a really articulate version of the conventional wisdom that I think all of us have imbibed since before we could talk.
I don't understand your comment. Companies like Netflix, Old Dominion Freight Line, Nvidia, Comfort Systems USA, and Intuitive Surgical have all significantly outperformed the S&P 500. What "awful" things have they done in the name of money?
> if they are avoiding doing awful things in the name of money, then they are leaving something on the table
That doesn't stand as a reason at all. I think the big contrast isn't as you described. It's more about short-term versus long-term or conflict of interest between principals and shareholders.
But to be specific, Wells Fargo was mentioned, and their downfall was very much driven by doing awful things in the name of money, specifically.
yeah, this is very much the challenge with writing any kind of business book: the book is frozen in time yet the companies grow and change. I tried really really hard not to put any company up on a pedestal, or even make any forward-looking predictions, but merely to show how each company illustrates a specific concept from the book.
My biggest struggle with this question is that "going bad" sometimes coincides with not just financial incentives, but also more people getting value out of it. For example Spotify gradually shifting from "we make it easy to curate and share playlists" to "we make them for you to use as background music constantly." Sometimes what's bad for the early power user is great for the late adopter, and it's difficult to make any kind of broad judgment about whether the change is better or worse.
What do you say to this interpretation? In particular do you think most cases could be framed as "the key audience/customer/market has shifted"? Is it possible to find greater financial success while doing things the primary audience doesn't like?
They study aspects of this phenomenon in UI design. There is a constant struggle between power users and novices, and a good UI absolutely cannot cater to both. Which means that over the life of a product, its UIs will tend to get more complicated and inscrutable as your user base levels up. Adobe products are often cited as prime examples.
This, of course, makes on boarding and new user acquisition harder, and can severely limit product growth. And this also leaves space for simpler products to come along and cater to the novice market. Or, companies can fight this tendency, and remove features, or make them harder to use, in order to cater to less demanding demographics.
What I'd be curious about is what spotify looks like as their market share levels off. Do they keep catering to the automatic playlist crowd, or does their average user get more sophisticated over time?
I don't have the link in front of me, but someone who used to work at Spotify wrote a really nice reflection about this change through the lens of incorruptible over on LinkedIn. If someone can find it and post it here, that'd be great. If not, I'll try to remember to come back and post it later.
I think these changes very rarely have to do with what customers want shifting, but when people say "the market," they are often confused about whether they're talking about customers or our financial markets. Frankly, it's far more often for this kind of correction to originate in the pressure from financial markets than any other single source.
I'm not just talking about where the initial pressure comes from, but the effects of the changes. I guess the question becomes about how easily these layers get disentangled. E.g. things investors like that then result in lower sales? Things that result in greater sales but that the customers don't actually like?
Naively of course it seems like investors don't like it when sales go down, so there'd be an extremely tight link between financial market and product market feedback. But I imagine you disagree, that this breaks down easily and creates problems?
Eric - I've worked for NASA, ATT, IBM, HP, Amazon, and Google, not to mention a couple of startups that I started in between. None of them (except the startups, but they were brief) stayed true to their original mission. I haven't read your new book, but IMO, it's because the founders leave and the next leadership don't share the vision or values of the founders in the same way. After all, a company is a collaboration among people who want to make a contribution. When the people change, the company changes. It's inevitable.
That said, you seem to have archetypes above Costco, Patagonia, and Novo Nordisk that avoided it.
Can you comment on not what it takes to build such a company, but rather how to transform companies like those that I worked for into ones that resist gravity? Or is it too late?
One of the sad truths that the book tries to confront about the world we live in today: that most companies simply fail the test of succession. This does not have to be the reality that we live in. It is absolutely 100% possible to build organizations to resist gravity and even to transform organizations that have fallen into its clutches. The fact that this is rare tells you something about the incentive design and values of our current financial system. This is not a law of nature.
I don't really think there's a short way for me to answer this question without having to summarize the entire book. This is what it's about. I'll simply say that the second part of the book, what I call "The Blueprint," is about both the governance and leadership tools that we have available to us to turn these organizations into the long-term, mission-driven, incorruptible places we all want to work at.
Like a lot of things, bad actors only have to get you to fail the test of succession once while the company has to succeed at it every time. Time is not on any companies side here and the longer it goes the more failing that test of succession starts to look like a law of nature.
> how a handful of companies (like Costco[..]) have successfully been structured to resist gravity
"I came to (Jim Sinegal) once and I said, ‘Jim, we can’t sell this hot dog for a buck fifty," Jelineck recalled[..]. "We are losing our rear ends.’ And he said, ‘If you raise the effing hot dog, I will kill you."
That's not structure, that's leadership. They were about to change the price, but one guy at the top with authority and an opinion said no. You could say "it's structure" that there was one guy at the top with authority, but it still depends on him having the right opinion. You need both a good structure and an unwaveringly idealistic (and correct) leader.
I love that you asked this question, although, of course, you didn't actually phrase it as a question, because this quote is literally in the book. I addressed this particular misconception as it relates specifically to Costco, because I myself once fell victim to the same misconception.
If you think Costco has endured only because of leadership, because of its strong ethos and its immense size, because you think it's just too big for Wall Street to mess with, you are not correct. My friend, nothing is too big for Wall Street to mess with. Wall Street has tried many times to dismantle Costco's ethos, and every time the unique structure of Costco is what has allowed them to resist.
The parent comment didn’t say anything about size or wall street. It said leadership is what has preserved it.
Which it doesn’t seem you have refuted in any meaningful way. You just restated what the parent comment is responding to with no further reasoning as to why leadership doesn’t account for it.
I honestly don't understand your comment, so let me try and recapitulate what I think you're saying and what I think I was saying, and then you can tell me where I missed the mark.
What I hear you saying is that the original comment simply said that leadership by itself is enough to preserve the Costco ethos. It didn't say anything about size or Wall Street or anything else. Is that right?
The reason I responded the way that I did is that the claim that something by itself is enough has to explain why most companies are able to be destroyed, even though they have really good leadership. I think the common answer when people ask about Costco is that the reason why, for them, leadership was enough when it hasn't been for other people, is something like they're so large. Does that make sense?
Either way, in order to say that leadership by itself is sufficient, we have to figure out why Costco has been able to endure as a gigantic public company when, for most companies, the larger they become, the more valuable they become as a target. Meaning that Wall Street or other financial forces will intervene to change their values.
And the answer, which I lay out in the book (not in my original comment), is that Costco is protected by a very distinctive thing I call a "governance fortress." This fortress (and not merely their leadership) is the reason why they have been able to endure for forty years.
In fact, the predecessor company of Costco, spiritually speaking, was a company called FedMart that had the leadership and ethos but did not have the fortress. I'll leave it to you to read to find out what happened to them.
> That's not structure, that's leadership. [...] one guy at the top [...] said no.
Yeah, there's no rule structure that can't be skirted and subverted by new owners with different objectives. The most resilient way to preserve your values is to:
Only take care, and keep your soul diligently,
lest you forget the things your eyes have seen,
and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life.
Teach them to your children and to your children's children.
Your successors don't need to be your literal children, but if you turn your company over to "strangers with money" you can't be surprised when they do what they want with their new possession.
It is true that most companies fail the test of succession. Even in the comment that you've made here, we've left unanswered the question of who will decide who should be chosen as the successor? That is something that can be influenced, but only at the institutional or structural level of an organization. Obviously, more details in the book.
You used the phrase "our industry". Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the 'tech industry' concept, simply because a lot of startups are not in software/computing, and a lot of new technology isn't either. But I get what people mean.
I notice that the companies you mention like Costco and Patagonia are not in the tech industry. Does your new book have any examples which show how to stay incorruptible in the face of the network effects that drive monopolization in the tech industry? Alternatively, have you seen workable ways to split network effects amongst networked affiliates, to spread out the market power?
I know that most founders aren't exactly looking to make a startup with a lot of competition (I'm sure not), but it would be nice to know if someone is fixing problems specific to the 'tech industry'.
Just dropping in to thank you for writing this book and raising awareness around it. A lot of builders are really disillusioned by how "corruptible" the tech industry has been.
I wrote a blog post called "Revenue Model is More Important than Culture" (it made the #1 spot on HackerNews a few years ago) arguing that the way to avoid that corruption is by making sure the business model is immune to it, but having read your thoughts, I'd say your argument (structure being the dominant term) is even stronger.
I wish I had read that blog post because that is one of the chapters in the new book. I actually think that the phrase "mission-driven" for most companies is a total lie. They are at best "mission-hopeful". In fact, I tried to create a new term for the work that is required: the management system, leadership techniques, and structural elements that are required to 100% align the business model with the mission. I call it "mission drive," as if it was an engine you could install and maintain.
I like the mix of management/leadership/structure. I do think leadership is an important aspect, and leaders who are uncompromising can have a big impact.
It's funny we both land on Google as a main example. I had this quote "I’m going to pick on Google a little bit here, but I do love that company. I think there’s a lot it can improve on, but it’s still one of my favorite and least “evil” large tech companies.", and honestly and sadly, I don't even know if I'd agree with the latter part of that statement anymore.
Maybe "mission-chauffeured." Revenue/business model is in the driver's seat and the mission just comes along for the ride and adapts to wherever the car is going.
An entrepreneur I used to admire a great deal was once described to me this way: "So and so doesn't do what's right. He makes whatever he does right." Ever since I heard that phrase, I haven't been able to unsee it in so many founders who I think sincerely want to do the right thing, but their ego gets in the way.
For those that want to go deeper with _Incorruptible_, I've spent the past few months doing hundreds of interviews and events discussing its various themes and topics. I'm having Claude Code summarize this progress along the way at https://howisincorruptiblegoing.com/
You can also see the various accolades, reviews, and awards that it's accumulated so far.
I agree with your premise that the unethical behavior in the markets is structural. I also commend your work on this book. The creation of the LTSE is also a huge and laudable accomplishment. Kudos!
However, I have to express some skepticism that through regulations and reforms, we can reverse the entire incentive structure for public investment to be aligned with stewardship rather than extraction. How do you plan to defy the "financial gravity" between you and this dream?
Finally, I think that Claude Code has misinterpreted your request to summarize your interviews and events. Instead, it created a marketing and promotional website with not a summary to be found!
I used AI extensively in the research, editing, and promotion phases of creating the book (and even shared screen with a few podcast hosts who wanted to see the solveit platform from Answer.AI up close). To be clear, I never let the AI write for me; I am not a fan of "vibe creating" of any kind. Instead, I tried to use the AI to improve my own skills so that the final artifact was better than it would have been before.
I know people are up in arms about this right now, but shouldn't at least some of blame for that fall on the tech industry itself, for how these tools are designed, promoted, and sold? I think in the long run, society will achieve a more healthy equilibrium. But in the meantime, it's gonna be a bit rocky.
I haven't read the new book yet, but I'd be interested in your take on Disney's trajectory over the last, say, 2 decades. It seems to have strayed pretty far from Walt's original vision, largely due to the actions of Bob Iger. He took what used to be a company that was fueled by creativity and turned it into a machine that strip mines IP and extracts value. Iger purchased IP (Pixar, Lucasfilm, Marvel, Fox) as a risk mitigation strategy since you get an established brand you can exploit on day 1. But in doing so he killed the soul of Disney, which was built on big creative bets (literally sell the car to make a movie, mortgage the house to build a park).
Any thoughts on bootstrapping a SaaS in the AI era? Is it more manageable because a single person can leverage more? Or more difficult because of increased resource needs and customer demands? And also how that factors into starting an "incorruptible" company today.
Any time you have a technological change, it's kind of confusing to figure out how it can apply to entrepreneurs. On the one hand, it makes it so much easier to create a new MVP, makes it easier to create distribution and to get connected to customers, to do many of the techniques that lean startup demands. On the other hand, that same capability is now in the hands of thousands or even millions of other people, including other people creating startups to compete with you and the incumbents you're trying to disrupt. It's always an open question whether the so-called attacker's advantage will overcome the so-called defender's advantage with any given technology.
In terms of the thesis of Incorruptible, though, I do think that LLMs in particular should be really, really advantageous for managers and leaders who want to create alignment and coherence within their own company. If there's anything that LLMs are extremely good at, it's summarization. So much of the modern leadership challenge is simply figuring out the answer to the question: what is my organization actually doing right now? That's a summarizing problem.
Isn’t “what” the easy part? I thought the leadership is more about why they are doing what they are doing and why is that important/not important. Something which LLMs are not great at today, but aren’t terrible and can make some good guesses at times.
No question, really - just wanted to say thanks for evangelizing this topic. I'm originally a medical doctor who converted to the ways of computer science, now a founder in the bio space. One thing I've consistently wrestled with is how to structurally defend our company's ability to "first, do no harm." I think the misguided incentives you raise warning about are also the primary reason for the defects we see in our (American) healthcare system today, particularly with the grievances toward big pharma and the insurance industry. So I was pumped watching your interview with Garry a few weeks back, currently working on applying it to our own little lemonade stand.
The founders and business models of Costco, Patagonia and Novo Nordisk are so radically different from so-called "tech startup" founders^1 that one must consider this in any analysis
1. Who lack a legitimate business model hence have resorted to "data collection from/about computer users, surveillance of computer users even when engaged in non-commercial activity and online advertising services" with generally free, so-called "products" and "services" offered as bait
"There's a darkness in our industry that we often don't talk about."
It's "talked" about on HN but voters and commenters working for or aspiring to start/work for these companies don't like the discussion
100% probability this comment will be greyed out to try to hide it from people using graphical web browsers (no effect on monochrome text-only browser users)
The people that start "tech" companies are often soulless and maladapted to society, having hid behind computers to escape their inability to deal with the real world. There are also "tech startups" founded by people who want to take advantage of those who have hidden behind computers and lack social skills, using them as pawns
These founders and pawns do not start, nor do they want to work for, companies like Costco, Patagonia or Novo Nordisk because they only believe in what they see on a computer screen not the real world. They want to operate in Silicon Valley fantasy land
It really isn't surprising what happens to so-called "tech" companies over time considering what they start from
"The people that start "tech" companies are often soulless and maladapted to society, having hid behind computers to escape their inability to deal with the real world".
Yes. Of course.
You cannot trust anyone to have a rounded mind unless they have actually done more than one thing, broadly speaking.
Having worked at one of these companies, I don't buy for one second, that these companies are not obsessed with financial benefit. You would be an absolute idiot to believe that.
These "tech startup" founders do not start, nor do the pawns want to work in the IT departments of, companies like Costco, Patagonia or Novo Nordisk because they only believe in what they see on a computer screen not the real world. They want to be in Silicon Valley fantasy land, not the regulated environments that Costco and Novo Nordick operate in. They worship obscene Silicon Valley wealth, they are beholden to venture capital investors and they want to build data centers. The environment is an afterthought. This is the opposite of the guy who founded Patagonia. For him the environment is forethought, and time in front of a computer is not what's important in life^1
1. Yes, I am aware Patagonia has made some mistakes with maufacturing
Is it realistic to make organizations that stay on mission long after the founder is gone?
I listened to a podcast interview you did where you talked positively about the Novo Nordisk Foundation as a successful governance story, but when I think of long lived foundations, I think of the Ford Foundation and the Hewlet Foundation that have significantly drifted from the founders' visions despite being non-profits. Many people think it is better for foundations to spend down all their resources before the founder is gone to prevent this drift and loss of efficacy.
Have you done any studies of what made long lived foundations drift on their mission despite no profit incentive?
I'm not an academic, so no, I have not done any of these studies, but good news, everyone: other people have. The specific structure of Nova Nordisk is not just a foundation. I think the two-entity structure, where a foundation oversees or governs a for-profit company, is uniquely suited to longevity of a mission precisely because it combines the stewardship orientation of the foundation with the performance orientation of the for-profit subsidiary. The data shows (for what it's worth) that such structures are five or six times more likely to live to year 50 compared to a standard for-profit company. I give examples in the book also of pure foundations that have lost this structure or have lost their mission integrity too. I really think you need both for it to endure.
Do you have any thoughts on Mozilla? It has a two-entity structure, but there are a lot of complaints that it is not sticking to its mission (or, slightly differently, that it's not succeeding at it, due to poor strategic choices).
(Apologies if you already addressed this somewhere. Thanks for doing this)
Reminds me of the question “why do good people go bad?”
What are invisible forces? What is good? What is evil? Physicists, philosophers and theologians alike think about those questions.
Do those questions need a foundation on which they stand to be answered? What is that foundation (are there relative foundations or are they by definition absolute?)?. Is there a moral standard that those handful of companies share? Similar to “success factors”, are there “success ethics” in your perspective?
What would be the elements of success ethics that others can learn from?
Q1: You have done a few friendly interviews on YouTube, but I haven't seen one that challenges you much. Do you know if there are upcoming interviews that you found pushed back?
Q2: Is the idea of shareholder supremacy fundamentally at odds with your with your preferred alternative governance structures, or is it just a time preference and risk attitude issue?
Q3: You will get sympathetic ears easily due to the subject matter. But the same book about non-profits would be a harder sell. Do you agree, and if true does that say something about the marketplace of ideas?
Honestly, there hasn't been that much pushback, and I've done something like 200 interviews for the book. I think it might have to do with the fact that we all secretly kind of agree with this thesis, even though we know we're not supposed to say so out loud. I'm sure there will be some pushback coming, especially if the book starts to become more popular or gets more famous.
Though I did get a pretty funny piece of pushback on one consulting company's podcast. The person said, "But wait a second, I learned in business school that everything you're saying here is wrong. Are you asking me to rethink that?" Something like that. I said, "Well, are you interested in looking at the evidence that what I'm saying is the truth?"
I think he was really genuinely struggling, because I don't think he was that interested. Many of us are not that interested in seeing the evidence that the things we believe or were taught are not quite true.
Q2: shareholder primacy is a bad idea on its own terms, as I lay out in the book. It doesn't prevent people from adopting any of governance structures I recommend, it just makes it more difficult, by creating career incentives that add friction to doing the right thing. That's partly why it's so value-destroying.
Q3: I don't understand this question, sorry. Maybe it's because I've spent many lonely years being berated for this subject matter and am only getting the sympathetic treatment lately...
Q3: Direct question: Have journalists and their industries been similarly corrupted from their proclaimed mission to communicate the truth? Do the issues in other groups of people (charity, religion, sport league) share the same root causes, or is the source of corporate corruption unique or at a different scale?
Thanks for doing this, Eric. I'm about halfway through Incorruptible and loving it so far.
Do you have any recommendations for entity formation infra that caters to mission driven companies? Something like Stripe Atlas that can form the more complex structures? Forming a PBC is becoming more standard but tthe other structures seem more esoteric (and expensive).
I got so frustrated that this is so difficult for people at the early stages to do with most law firms that I actually helped start a new law firm (called Virgil) to do it properly.
Virgil is an AI-powered law firm, but it doesn't let the AI do the legal work for you. It actually hires and trains human lawyers to become AI-powered superhumans. It handles lots of the really unpleasant back-office crap that early-stage companies absolutely hate dealing with, from payroll to compliance and a lot of finance stuff.
Of course it also does full-service legal work. Because I'm involved, it is specialized in setting up mission protective structures for startups. We have worked really hard to drive the cost of such structures down.
In fact, many of the implementation guides that you can access from the book if you scan the various QR codes were developed in partnership with Virgil. If you want to DIY it, I think we've given you enough information to do so, including sample templates, term sheets, documents, etc. If you prefer a low-cost, flat-fee subscription, Virgil is also there to help you at any time. The URL is tryvirgil.com.
(And you are welcome to use Virgil alongside your established high-prestige high-cost firm, too, if you prefer to do that. It will still save you considerable amounts of money)
Thanks a ton! I have called several local firms about these structures and it hasn't been very successful (note; i have complex requirements in addition to wanting the protections in your book).
One other thing i've grappled with while reading the book is this:
Some of the internal issues you describe seem to come from companies growing too big. The Founders who lose control, weakening culture etc. The size of a company seems to correlate with so many issues (not all related to financial gravity).
I wonder how much pain can be avoided by just staying small (employee count).
Thanks again for the book(s). It feels very mission driven which perfect.
Hi Eric, I worked for IMVU shortly after you left and tbh I didn't see a ton of "lean startup" ideas implemented well. And today, company is not healthy.
Well, there is a reason that I left after all. What's funny is that, although IMVU is today mostly famous because it appears in "The Lean Startup," many of the people who were there at the time were quite annoyed with me and found the ideas grating or even irritating. It reminds me of that old quote that "nobody is a prophet in their own hometown." Well, that kind of happened to me.
What happened in the years since? I don't really know. The company has not been in close touch with me, so I can only speculate or guess.
Do you think that building what the "market wants" (finding traction/gold, and leaning into that) comes at the cost of people (not) making and promoting "things that should exist" (e.g., companies and products/services aligned with ideal visions of the world they want to be in)?
If so, how is the tradeoff justified? (Make money first, then do "ideal" things?)
If not, why not? (Other than that it's unsuccessful strategically/statistically and wasteful, I guess.)
Any elaboration/response on this theme would be appreciated. Thanks!
I'd encourage you to study the story of Tony's Chocolonely. I included a version of that story in chapter 12 of the new book.
Tony's make some of the most delicious chocolate in the world, but their mission is actually to eradicate child slavery in the production of cocoa. I bring this up because before Tony's, it was widely assumed that "the market" didn't care about child exploitation. They just wanted delicious chocolate. Yet Tony's found a way to prove that this was not true.
The more general lesson is that many of the stories we tell ourselves about "what the market wants" are mere fabrications or just-so stories designed to make us feel better about how crappy our alternatives are. Sometimes it just takes a bold entrepreneur to show us that we already collectively are committed to a different set of ideals. We've just never had the opportunity to vote with our wallets to make it happen.
A lot of big organizations have absorbed a Lean Startup POV -- don't debate, just ship an MVP and measure. But in practice, we're usually measuring a proxy metric, it's a short-term test, the audience may be unrepresentative and because of all this, the result doesn't generalize.
What do you think an experiment needs before it can actually be called learning? And what kinds of product questions should not be done as experiments at all?
How often do you see companies recover from financial gravity? Or is it mostly irreversible?
How much do you attribute worsening of company values to things like professional managers, too much hierarchy, and less founder-mode; versus financial gravity?
In a case like GitHub where their focus seems less on open-source these days, should developers try to help GitHub better support open-source or should the focus be on building alternatives?
You've framed this question as if these things are separate phenomena, but from my point of view, they are all symptoms of the same underlying cause. The sad truth is that, as I say in the book, "It's always too early until it's too late." The truth is we don't ever know if something is too late until we try. If you love an organization and you think you have the opportunity to try to help them get better, go for it. If you decide they've abandoned their ethos, I definitely think you should help support and build the alternative.
For reasons I try to explain in the book, open source in particular is an example of the kind of mission-driven positive externality type of business that our modern best practices make it hard for people to see and understand. This is going to be a recurring problem in the free software and open source movements for years to come unless we get smarter about these forces.
I've read The Lean Startup during undergrad and it was a bible to me at the time, thank you for your work, you got me into startup culture in a place where everyone else did not support of it.
One question I have for you is on finances, I think that still remains an afterthought in startup hustle culture, and perhaps even by design, I feel like the system is designed so that VCs keep winning and founders rarely get the exit they deserve. What is your take on that?
The way around that is to not take VC money. There are some (not many) startups that got to unicorn status by bootstrapping and not taking outside money. It's harder, yes, but in a way a more pure effort.
When starting a company, perhaps it’s best to consider something you love doing so much that staying there and nurturing the business is more important than exiting.
Thank you for saying that. When I wrote that book, people like you were very much in my mind at the time. I'm really glad to hear you found it useful, even if the people around you didn't understand or support what you were trying to do.
You're quite right. There are many, many problems with the current "best practices" including that many founders wind up with nothing even if the organization succeeds. In fact, one study I cite in the book found that something like 80% of founders of venture-backed companies will no longer be CEO even three years after an IPO.
> In fact, one study I cite in the book found that something like 80% of founders of venture-backed companies will no longer be CEO even three years after an IPO.
Why? Is there something that inherently prevents founders to remain in control after IPO?
Yes, it's called today's governance "best practices." Many of them are actually quite value-destroying, and founders should run for the hills every time they hear that phrase.
What can a founder do to safeguard his position, interests, and company? A couple of things that come to my mind are: have an aligned/friendly board who believe in you; second, have dual-class shares (like Meta, SpaceX, Google). Anything else you would like to add?
Wouldn't simple (political) ponerology describe why does this happen to companies? It's the source of "hard times produce strong people, strong people produce good times..." cycle, and the observation that people who want to live easy lives embracing dark triad patterns slowly rise to the top, gaming perf stats, "playing the game", transforming the company/society underneath in the process.
Any examples of corrupted companies that you’d like to share? I’m especially curious about your thoughts on Meta and Google, the biggest startups of their time and how they evolved.
I write about both companies (briefly) in the book. I've noticed in the comments I get from readers that people still feel very tenderly towards Google, remembering that incredible sense of idealism they instilled in so many of us when they went public. So I had to be very careful what I wrote about Google; I actually mostly left the critique to ex-Google employees, by quoting a dataset of people who had been at Google 10+ years and then wrote about their experience after leaving. Put together, those essay are heartbreaking.
By contrast, I can say pretty much anything about Facebook and nobody seems to care. Yet, if you go back and read their S-1, you can see how they very much wanted to be seen as the mission-driven good guys.
It's all quite sad, really. There are plenty more stories of corruption in the book. To be honest, it was a challenge to avoid having the whole thing read as bleak given how pervasive this corruption is today. I did my best to balance it out. You'll have to let me know if you think I got it right.
> So I had to be very careful what I wrote about Google
Can you say more about this? Do you think those tender feelings towards Google track some strain of values which Google still carries? Or does this statement reflect some fear of retaliation or conflict that would drown out the rest of your message?
Genuinely interested in how you think about this, especially in the context of this new book’s topic. Thank you for this AMA.
> Do you think those tender feelings towards Google track some strain of values which Google still carries?
I suspect that it's largely just that brand reputation tends to be very sticky in the minds of people.
It's the same reason that Pyrex, Harley-Davidson, and Dyson are still high reputation brands even though the product they make today is tragically worse than what gave them their initial reputation.
(I tend to think of private equity as often existing as an arbitrage system to take advantage of the fact that they can buy a loved brand, slash the quality and increase the profit, and continue to sell at its original price based on that brand stickiness for a while until people eventually wise up.)
The idealism that has been sucked out of the tech industry. It was so (naively) hopeful at one point, and now the arms race and profit-maximization has eroded it all. Your observations really resonate with me.
I'm surprised I hadn't heard of the Long-Term Stock Exchange, it seems like a much healthier direction for the market.
This mean you are now under gag order as you rise on the bestseller list? :)
Lean Startup is awesome, can’t wait to read your new. Excited to read about the ostensibly-not-evil Costcos of the world and hope the smartest & wealthiest amongst us grok it, that we win more when others win.
Thank you. I really appreciate your kind words, and I consider myself deeply fortunate that I've been able to speak my mind freely on these topics, at least so far.
I think you’re spot on. Facebook employees have accepted its fate. It has become a company of mercenaries. I’m surprised they folded more quickly than Google.
You frame corruption as financial gravity, fixable by governance design at the firm level. But the dollar's strength has been reinforced for fifty years by oil trading in dollars. Tying our money to a conflict asset implicated in war, pollution, and enormous suffering. Can any company be incorruptible inside a monetary system that isn't?
I'm glad you're doing this. I am aware of _Incorruptible_ from seeing posts on LinkedIn, but from your description here, I now realize I'm going to love this book! I wasn't going to make time to check it out, but I will now!
Where does Apple fall on the Incorruptible spectrum? Is it covered in the book?
Looking forward to reading this. Still have a signed copy of The Lean Startup from an event in Seattle from 15 years ago. The book had a big part in pushing me towards doing my own lean startup just a year later, so, thank you.
I finished The Lean Startup a few days ago, and I really felt the power of the ideas you've shared there coming from a heavily technical background; incredible work.
It's already been 14+ years since you wrote the book; I wonder if a second edition is something you have in mind, or at least on your consideration list
Eric, really interested in how you pick the things you work on. I'm a really big fan of the concept of the Long Term Stock Exchange, but projects like that seem to me at times like paddling a canoe upstream using a spoon.
Whats your criteria? Is there an analytical component? Are you willing to work on something even if "success" is unlikely? And with all of this going on how do you have time to work on books!
thank you for your work by the way. It continues to be useful year after year to me and people around me!
I tend to use the metaphor of trying to carve the Grand Canyon with nothing more than water and gravity, but I appreciate you honoring and acknowledging the difficulty of this.
Honestly, I don't have formal criteria. I have young kids now, and I try to ask myself every once in a while, when they're old enough to really understand what I do for a living. When they ask me: "at that moment in history, what were you doing?" I want to be able to answer them and give them an answer that I and they will find satisfying.
I'll also be honest that I've my fill of conventional "success" in my life. I don't feel obligated to use the likelihood of success as a criterion anymore. I tend to just do the things that, in the moment, seem right to me. Or where it seems like, for whatever reason, no one else is willing or likely to try it, and I have been given that lonely assignment.
Many of the things that I've tried haven't worked out, but that's okay. I accept that that is a precondition of the kind of work I like to do.
not a question just a comment - I read The Lean Startup years ago, still think about it about once a week. I regularly give away copies to people starting companies who I see going down a bad path with no tight feedback loop.
I’ve been thinking about what objective harnesses can be put around governance for companies and governments as well. Transparency dashboards, clearer real-time feedback mechanisms. What do you suggest especially for governments (local, or even larger). Keep thinking AI might actually help improve our feedback mechanisms given all the noise.
Yes, I do think this is something that LLMs should be very good at. As I've said in a couple of the comments in the thread, summarizing is LLMs' greatest superpower. But I have a whole chapter in the book about the use of metrics and, of course, their misuse. I'd be very cautious here. Government reformers have often assumed that just having better data will cause agencies to make better decisions, but this is simply not true. The choice about which data to pay attention to, whether to make decisions in a scientific or humane way, are values questions, not just data questions. They require the installation of a specific ethos in the organization to stay true to those values. Without that, more data will not have any effect whatsoever.
I've long been suspicious of the conflicts of interest induced by exit-orientated investment models.
I'm curious if you think cooperative businesses leveraging non-voting preferred shares, community shares and other coop investment instruments are more resilient against this type of corruption.
I'm wonder how you see the tradeoffs these models have against traditional LLC/VC models and how you would mitigate them.
I hate the word "exit" altogether. It's only the investors who are leaving Middle Earth; the rest of us are still try to make this thing work.
I address your question in much more detail in the book, using examples as varied as Mondragon in Spain, John Lewis Partnership in the UK, and Vanguard and credit unions here in the US.
We actually have pretty good evidence that these other structures are more resilient and more stable than the classic "best practices" we have all been indoctrinated into.
Unfortunately, most of us have been told that these approaches are incompatible. You either go "big" and try to make a lot of money, have investors, have a grand vision, etc. Or you go "small" and do something "ethical" and non-extractive. So many of us have been taught that it is the fate of the small to be destroyed by the big, since they are more ruthless and more powerful.
But the evidence doesn't really support this just-so story. My goal with the book is to help those who want to build mission-driven companies to realize that this is a source of strength, not weakness, and act accordingly.
> So many of us have been taught that it is the fate of the small to be destroyed by the big, since they are more ruthless and more powerful. But the evidence doesn't really support this just-so story.
This is the comment I came here to read. Thank you, I already have a copy of the book and intend to dig in more on these themes specifically.
As AI becomes more capable, it seems like a company can be a founding charter and a pool of cash to be spent on tokens to achieve the aims of that charter.
How do you feel about these AI only companies, and how do you think they could affect the wider market?
I expect many of these so-called AI-only companies will actually involve quite a few humans. I think the general idea that AI could be really useful at helping an organization stay true to the mission or purpose in its charter is quite right. Although I still think, at the end of the day, humans should be in the loop and not just as an accountability sink, but really truly providing the creativity, the vision, and the direction of the whole organization.
Your first book was my like my bible, used many of the concepts when building gomacro.ai, at the same time found it so easy to get sucked into non-lean methodology. Very hard these days to come up with a sound idea, so many people building things that nobody asked for to begin with and in the age of AI its even more so the case. Best of luck with the new one, will give it a read!
Thanks for doing this - I'm an author, and my working theory is that every author is a one-person startup, so I try to think about lean startup principles when I think about the business of being an author.
How do you think Lean Startup principles could be applied to ordinary families looking to navigate the existing economic stresses we're experiencing?
Re: your point about being an author, that has always been my approach, too. For this new book, I took in a metric ton of customer feedback (I had over 600 test readers generate more than 10,000 comments) and it really helped the final product. The challenge, of course, is always how to take in external feedback without losing your vision
I've been a bit reluctant to over-generalize from my own theories, and so am not sure I would want to speculate about how to apply them in a family context.
hi Eric, the 'lean startup' & the work you & Steve Blank did was revolutionary in terms of getting products to market quicker.
what are the 'slower' go to market channels that you've seen produce sustainable results also producing sustainable businesses. not the come fast, die fast kind ?
Coming from the blockchain space, but wanting to build something with bright patterns, while also using DLT and crypto, has been painful, to say the least.
I would like to know how best to stand out from the toxic, finance-driven world that is defi and crypto generally, without getting rolled in with all the clowns. Of course, I know that clear messaging and verifiable, evidence-driven claims are good, but I am thinking about the more abstract, strategic side to things, which I still feel under-prepared for.
I appreciate that you're being honest about this challenge. In the book, I actually say that one of the problems with our modern economy is that we've created too many ways to make money without creating any value at all, in fact sometimes even by destroying value. When I give this talk in public settings, I'll sometimes have someone yell out "crypto" from the audience. That is how the public perceives the whole sector.
The good news is that we all know that being a bold contrarian is the key to returns. If you can figure out a way to structure your initiative such that it literally cannot betray the public, it literally cannot betray your mission, it literally cannot betray human values, you might be able to create something that people are awfully excited about.
Just curious what other types of 'gravities' exist in organizations? In a negative gravity example, something I've seen as a social contagion is when some people start resigning it tends to spread and then the organization slowly decays (or quiets quits)
I try to work through a few of these in the book. For example, the "social contagion" theory of layoffs from Stanford Professor Jeffrey Pfeffer. Also, in my previous book and this one, I draw on a concept I call "career equity," which has to do with the fact that people's perception of what will get them ahead in an organizational hierarchy is, in very many ways, more real to them and more valuable to them than any kind of bonus incentive or financial equity you offer them.
More importantly, my goal in the book is to teach the reader how to see these deeper underlying forces that operate below the surface of most organizations. Once you see and identify them, you can learn how to wield them.
A company's values become even more important with AI accelerating and expanding the mission of traditional Delaware Corporations.
Do you have advice on how to use AI to help teams stay true to their values?
Having not read your book yet, in my mind there's the obvious legal support AI can provide to help navigate complex situations, but maybe there's some other groundwork in the value creation and implementation itself?
If those are your questions, I'm confident you're going to like the book a lot as it gets into precisely those topics.
I will say, in general, I think AI is an amplifier of values, and so it will make the good companies better and the bad companies worse. Or maybe more accurately, it will make the good parts of companies better and the bad parts of companies worse.
Either way, I do think that LLMs can solve many of the leadership challenges that we have to solve today with hierarchy and dashboards and bureaucracy, because LLMs are extremely good at summarizing the context of a given situation. One of the hardest leadership challenges of all is simply answering the simple question: What is my company doing right now?
Thanks Eric - been a fan of your work for years! I remember Steve Blank bragging in his early courses that you evangelized his work to the masses. I applaud writing a book on the challenges of making a business that is net good for society. I've personally found that there are just so many forces pushing towards the status quo (make more $$), that it's really hard to create a company that prioritizes public good.
How much do you blame our values of our society for creating corrupt businesses? Are corrupt businesses just a mirror of our own values?
Yes, that's right. But I also think that business can be the catalyst for getting us out of this mess too, because ultimately, mission-driven companies are a source of tremendous and surprising power.
The question has been also on our mind. We restructure now towards a https://steward-ownership.com/ company structure (in CH). The hard challenge will be fundraising - so we are actually considering selling "Partizipationsscheine" which are stocks without a vote, but still a dividend. On a open market (maybe through polygon / base coins). I just wonder how to resolve the initial funding question on those companies. Any ideas?
Don't think you need anything like polygon or tokens for this. I think you just have to have the courage to ask investors to play the proper role within the governance of your company and, frankly, have the business results such that they are willing to accept those terms.
Eric, it's interesting the companies you've picked that "structurally resist gravity" and the ones you've left out. Costco, Patagonia, and Nova Nordisk are all interesting cases. But you're missing Mondragon, Equal Exchange, King Arthur Flour, and many others.
Basically, you appear to be focusing on investor owned companies and missing the entire class of worker cooperatives where the financial gravity you're talking about isn't merely resisted -- it doesn't exist. These companies have other challenges, to be sure, but if you're going to write a book called "Incorruptible" talking about businesses, not including these seems a significant oversight (at the least).
Do you address these in the book and just fail to highlight them here or is this really something you missed entirely?
First, I have not read the book.
You mentioned Novo Nordisk, but given the current context and so many changes that employees/company has undergone recently and the way it is performing, do you still think that it was a good example to include here. What factors played for it to suddenly undergo so much when you have mentioned they have been structured to resist gravity and thrive for decades -- or even centuries?
I've been reading the book. The important part is in 2004 they were offered to be acquired by serono. Because of their governance they were able to say no to the acquisition. Meanwhile serono was later acquired by merck and largely shut down. Back in 2004 novo was about $2.5 a share. Now at its current price even after a huge downturn it is $43.3 So that 17x gain you can attribute advantages with how they governed themselves at that time. Is it a silver bullet or always make stock go up and to the right? No of course not. Are they making governance mistakes now? I'm not sure. But most companies probably would have sold for a ton of cash and if so everyone would have missed out on huge gains, not just in money but in technology and public good.
In your view, which are couple different companies that aren’t very big (not FAANG level yet), but you think will become quite successful? Which of them are mission driven and you’d be sad if they later become “corrupted”?
I'm about to launch a startup, do you do consulting for small companies with what I'd like to think is a big mission (likely similar to all startups lol)? In other words, is there some way to contact you and do you work with non-billion dollar startups if you find it worthwhile? Or is it more in line with 'read my books and call me when you raise your first million'?
Hey, Eric! I read Lean Startup many years ago when I was in my "let's do a startup" phase. My idea didn't make it, but I learned a lot and am glad I took the chance. Thanks for the motivation!
You said to "Ask You Anything," so here's my question: I have mostly stopped buying from Amazon. That includes books. I'd like to buy your next book. What's the best way to support you if I don't want to purchase through them? More generally, what's the best way to support authors that _only_ publish on Amazon without supporting Amazon itself?
Luckily, many of us publish in many places other than Amazon, and in fact the best way to support any author is to buy the book from your local independent bookstore. In fact, if you want to do me a big favor, you'll call your local independent bookstore, ask them if they carry the book, and if they don't, berate them for not doing so. But please do it in a polite way. In all seriousness, I actually made a list of bookstores that are selling the book that are not part of the big chains, and you can find all that on my website, incorruptible.co.
Most? I don't think that can quite be right. But I do think the stuff I'm writing about has held up pretty well through many, many cycles of boom and bust. In fact, Steve Blank has a great new essay out about the coming crash and how ideas in the new book might be useful in helping us reorganize our economy afterwards, kind of the same way The Lean Startup did after the dot-com crash.
I am a few chapters into the book, so maybe this is answered later. Don’t most people who play a part in corrupting companies get away with it? You mention Jack Welch and James McNerney, but it feels like explicit examples of corruption are rare. I imagine that many of the perpetrators move on to other boards and profit off of the decline at the expense of others?
You said build-measure-learn principles survive AI. But when an MVP costs hours instead of months, doesn't the bottleneck move entirely to distribution and customer development?
You need to learn the parable of picking up dimes in front of the steam roller, which I think originally is attributed to Jean-Louis Gasset, the founder of BOS. The idea is that in a genuine platform war (which in the tech industry we haven't had for a while), new business opportunities are kind of like little dimes you see in the street in front of a giant platform steam roller. If you're agile enough, you can jump into the street, grab the dime, and jump out. In fact, you can do it repeatedly. The only problem is that if you stumble and fall once, you die.
There used to be a lot of wisdom in the entrepreneurial ecosystem about how to survive such a platform in a more durable way. For example, if you own the customer, then you can play the major platforms off against each other. Or, if you study the case, for example, of Intuit, which survived the attempt of Microsoft to absorb that product feature into their own platform monopoly at the time, there are lessons to be learned. But of course, every platform war is different, and I'm sure there will be new lessons that we will learn from this one.
What's funny is when the book was published, I remember someone telling me that I should have included more examples of failed startups in the manuscript. I remember answering them, "Oh, I have. We just don't know which ones yet."
This is the difficulty of writing any kind of business book. There's just no way to use any company as an example to illustrate some principle without people misunderstanding that you're holding them up as the perfect or even great company. I use case studies to illustrate the concepts that I think are useful. I can't guarantee success any more than an athlete can tell you that if you study the way that Tony Gwynn hits the baseball, you too will be able to hit 300 in the big leagues.
That's fair but I felt you held up these companies and founders as these demigods running this well oiled operation and yet I remember looking up those companies and all quietly folded within a few years of your book coming out.
My point is you were not able to demonstrate any correlation with your suggested methods with startup success. A company could do the exact opposite of what you recommend and be successful. Or follow it to a tee and fail which is what all of them did (happy to hear about any counter examples here from the original book). So what exactly is the point if you can't even move the needle a little bit?
You should, however, ( assuming your ideas are correct ) be able to look at a company and tell if it is following your ideas or not and will therefore ( assuming your ideas are correct ) be successful or not, and therefore make billions investing.
it's funny, people constantly criticize LTSE because it hasn't made "enough" progress (you can see one such example already on HN below). But since nobody has ever done anything remotely like this before, I am not sure how we are supposed to judge how much progress it "should" have made by now.
and since everyone widely agrees that what we are attempting is "impossible" I am pretty impressed that we've managed to make any progress at all :)
Let's say this has already happened and ossified across large, formerly-innovative companies that now have so much size and inertia behind them that it might take decades for one to "fail" in a traditional sense. What can be done to reverse the process?
I won't sugar-coat this, for many companies this will be extremely difficult. but, as I wrote about it my previous book, sometimes conditions conspire to make radical transformation possible. it usually takes a crisis or an extremely bold leader to decide to take such a big swing.
Unfortunately, a lot of leaders who do have the moral authority and power to attempt such a thing do not really know what structural changes to demand. in fact, they tend to focus on the typical management/leadership stuff: business model, org chart, strategy, vision. These things are important. But there is a deeper layer that tends to get overlooked or ignored: structure, governance, boards, the relationship with investors.
In the new book, I try to tackle both topics in a new way, so that future leaders will know what to ask for when and if they have the opportunity to try.
> sometimes conditions conspire to make radical transformation possible. it usually takes a crisis or an extremely bold leader to decide to take such a big swing.
Yes, I use AI quite a lot, and I worry a lot about the effect that technology is having on me. Luckily, I have the advantage of using a tool called Solve It from the company I helped found called Answer.ai with Jeremy Howard that is explicitly designed for human-in-the-loop creation of artifacts and the development of human skills even while you use AI. Otherwise, it's likely that LLMs will cause your own skills to atrophy. You can learn more at solve.it.com
100% the same. Some people see this as the darkness at the heart of the for-profit sector metastasizing and affecting the other sectors. I think that's a reasonable first approximation of what's going on. But in the book, I tried to make a more intellectually complete case that part of the issue is that our current distinctions that we make between, for example, for-profit and non-profit, are intellectually incoherent. That might be part of the problem, too.
Does "financial gravity" imply that noble missions are generally less profitable? Is there a way to align that (maybe by governments structuring the market with taxes / regulations)? Is that realistic?
You're going to find this hard to believe, but actually, mission-driven companies tend to outperform their conventional counterparts. The problem is that financial gravity tends to destroy them before they can become bona fide competitors. In the book, I mostly focus on what we as leaders can do to protect our organizations from this force. Of course, it'd be nice if the people who make market-related policy were busy trying to encourage and inspire and incentivize long-term thinking instead of short-term thinking. That would make all of our lives so much easier and so much better.
Are the lessons you have distilled applicable to other institutions in society which decline due to corruption? How is corruption different from your concept of financial gravity?
Yes. In the book, I do my best to explain how our current for-profit and non-profit labels don't really make sense, and that therefore these issues are pervasive in society (public/private sector has similar issues, as I discuss in the later chapters).
Corruption = the symptom
Gravity = the force that causes it
In the book, I give the example of a bridge that collapses. If you ask an engineer "why did it collapse" you'll be annoyed if they say "gravity" even though that is technically correct. If we go examine the wreckage and notice that the metal bolts have been corroded beyond recognition, we can start to think through what went wrong and what to do about it going forward.
Only an engineer under severe pressure would snark about gravity to leadership about a bridge collapse, though. A good engineer would challenge the missing context instead. If you ask an engineer “why did it collapse” without the correct statement of context, then of course you’ll get an answer you dislike, because they’re going to (as is human norm) assume their own context rather than the none you provided. Instead, ask better questions. “Are we liable for this collapse?” is usually what I would expect a corporate leader to want answered, and so as a senior engineer I would reply to the context-free question “why did it collapse?” with a context clarification request: “Are you asking about the immediate cause, about the root cause, or about which company should be held accountable?”. There’s nothing quite like watching an exec choke out an admission of interest in legal liability rather than engineering factors after interrupting an engineer working on the collapse who knows full well not to write checks that will get them cashiered :)
What do you think of the current efforts to go from quarterly to semiannual corporate reporting in the way it is playing out in the current administration?
Well, given that it was the company I founded, LTSE, that made the original petition at the SEC to try to move in this direction, you can guess. At the time, everyone said it was a fool's errand. Now that it seems likely to succeed, we've mostly been written out of the story.
However, the details matter a great deal, and I don't know that much about what the actual proposal the SEC is going to adopt is going to be. The last draft that I saw left me pretty worried.
What's interesting to me is that, in all the hubbub, neither the journalists nor the policymakers seem that interested in the actual evidence that we have amassed in academia on this question. For example, one important study suggested that moving from semi-annual to quarterly reporting costs companies something like 5% of their market cap. It's incredibly expensive, not because generating the reports is expensive, but rather the evidence seems to be that companies under quarterly reporting start to run the company for the benefit of the report rather than for customers.
That this is bad for investors, I hope you will see as self-evident.
How much of the "financial gravity" do you attribute to VCs?
I've noticed that VCs try very hard to separate the world into "VCs + founders" and "everyone else" and that the more time a founder spends in the VC+founders bubble the more distorted their worldview can become.
Unfortunately, that is not unique to VC but happens at every layer of the capital stack for reasons I explain, I hope you'll find convincingly in the book.
The sad fact is that most VCs are not even consciously aware that they're doing this. They are simply the agents of a deeper force.
I've always find it an interesting dichotomy between their public image, retail worker reputation, and corporate reputation. The former two are fantastic. I live in Seattle metro area where they are headquartered, and the last is horrible.
I've had more than one recruiter tell me it's a classic, blue collar, "we've always done it this way" environment since many of their corporate people rose through the ranks in stores, not tech. As I believe Warren Buffet put it, "every company is a tech company these days," so this creates problems. I met someone at a party there about three years ago tell me a data migration went so poorly, they'll have to use two financial systems for at least ten years because the previous system was homegrown with ancient tech.
As an ENTJ, the later would drive me crazy, and I've declined when recruiters want to talk to me about such and such manager position at Costco.
Huge fan of lean startup. With being able to build MVP in hours with AI, has the "build-measure-learn" loop collapsed into something fundamebtally different? Or did the bottleneck moved elsewhere?
Learning has always been and still is the bottleneck. You can't outsource it to another country. You can't outsource it to a machine. At the end of the day, the bottleneck exists between the ears, and that process is slow and painful.
Hi Eric. In this day and age, and in the next year or two, what do you foresee as the most practical first steps for someone to work towards delivering a startup for income they can sustain themselves on?
And how has the traditional loop of validation, delivering and iterating on products, and getting your first paid customers changed since fast output is now possible with AI and technology?
Please structure this for someone with no startup experience, and such that event a child can understand. And please create a version that works for someone to begin to validate their idea right now and measure progress, and modify/iterate towards a goal of money generation for themselves or a team now and long-term. (And would you also describe then how this person can work on attracting a team for someone who has never successfully navigated choosing their own team before.) (And would you also accept my thanks, this is very kind of you)
Hi Eric, former IDEOer here. I know you spent some time at IDEO observing how we work. In my time there (2014-2024), it felt like most clients misinterpreted "MVP" to mean "the absolute lowest-effort barely-working code that we can rush out to say we shipped something." When they did manage to ship a low-quality MVP, they had no budget for maintenance or iteration. Basically, they shipped a rushed, crappy product, and some of them concluded "well, Lean, Agile and Design Thinking are all BS. We should go back to waterfall."
Sometimes clients asked IDEO to design under this shitty-MVP model (we generally refused), other times we were brought in to clean it all up.
Why do you think the concept of "MVP" was almost universally misunderstood? And, thinking about Incorruptible, how did the best companies out there internalize it?
I don't think you can put an idea out into the world without understanding that some people are going to willfully misunderstand it. We live now, especially in the age where literally ignorance is optional. When you see someone who misunderstands what an MVP is, you know that they haven't spent even five minutes reading the Wikipedia page or made any effort to try to understand it. I don't consider such people to be good faith interlocutors, and therefore I don't really think the fact that they criticize or don't understand the concept is that relevant to the rest of us who are capable of thinking for ourselves.
At the end of the day, I try to lay out in my first book the reasons why the theory that gives rise to MVP and the rest of the Lean Startup makes sense, is logical, and is consistent with a set of first principles. As a result, that theory is capable of making predictions which you can test for yourself.
Writing now for other founders who might encounter this page: If you look elsewhere in this thread, you will find lots and lots and lots of entrepreneurs who are saying how much they found these concepts helpful. You shouldn't do it because other people said so. Rather, you should take that as inspiration to think for yourself, try it, and see if the theory strikes you as valid.
Right now I actually think an MVP should be Maximum Viable Product. Partly because of AI but also because it shifts one's perspective to what Viable means.
Of course, many of the tactics and examples in the book are now a bit dated, so if I did an "AI edition" I guess we would update it with new stories and new tips on how to use various AI-powered tools to accelerate. But I think the principles have stood up pretty well.
I want to distinguish between a mission and a mission statement. I will not help you wordsmith your mission statement. I frankly don't think it matters.
But a great mission generally combines three things:
1. a long-term commitment to maximize some aspect of human flourishing (in the book I explain how this is the true definition of what it means to create a for-profit venture)
2. a set of values that include a determination to make principled decisions aligned with this goal, such that every decision the org makes is coherent
3. the strength to resist both the inner temptation and the outer pressure to defect, betray, or otherwise abandon the long-term goal
In the book I go into a lot more detail about how to do this, including how to make fiduciary commitments to the human beings you'd rather die than betray.
"1. a long-term commitment to maximize some aspect of human flourishing (in the book I explain how this is the true definition of what it means to create a for-profit venture"
How does this square with the widely taught business-school definition of a for-profit entity being something that aims to maximize shareholder value?
Boy, do I make my best effort in the book to take this idea out to the woodshed and show how this is a complete misunderstanding of what it means to be a for-profit entity. I hope you'll read the book and then come back and let me know if you think I was able to make a convincing case.
Not eries (obviously) but if you switch out shareholder for stakeholder i.e. maximise stakeholder value, you gain a wider set of responsibilities more aligned with Eric's comment. This is in itself not a new idea, it partly emerged out of the work of R. Edward Freeman. His original book on stakeholder management was published in 1984 and over the last decade has become at least a regular discussion topic at many business schools. However, the idea needs to gain far more momentum. Hopeful Eric Reis's new book also helps move the discussions forward - looking forward to reading it.
Eric, The Lean Startup had a huge influence on how I think about startups and product work, so first: thank you.
Given the current wave of AI-assisted coding (Claude Code/Codex) and the broader enshittification of SaaS/platforms, do you think B2B SaaS founders now face a new "we can just build this ourselves" problem?
How would you think about testing for that risk early?
I don't remember the exact number, but I read somewhere that when Jack Dorsey announced a 40% layoff and claimed it was being caused by AI, his personal net worth went up something like $2 billion. When we outsource judgment to what "the market" wants, this is the result.
Why do you anthropomorphize companies? Is it to absolve individuals of responsibility?
> We've all experienced watching a company we love or admire be warped and broken beyond recognition; until it's a husk of its former self, or worse. I wanted to understand why. And I wanted to know what all of us can do to stop that from happening.
I happen to think that organizations are literally alive. They are superorganisms. To be more scientifically accurate, they are examples of the class of beings which are "emergent intelligence."
I don't think there's any way to talk about this without running into the problem of anthropomorphization. So I tried to be really careful with it in the book. You'll have to judge for yourself if you think I got it right.
And I'm especially sensitive to the question of accountability because you're right: today we mostly want to see these problems as being done by individual villains, because at least we can hold individuals accountable. How well is that going? It seems like we are breeding a class of people that are completely above accountability. I don't think that's tenable. I think in the long run, this system will collapse if it cannot hold the people responsible for atrocities accountable.
Personally, I think the best way to do this is to understand the systems that are causing these behaviors today so that we can locate responsibility in the right place.
I know you meant this comment as a criticism, but it actually raises a really interesting point of what we mean by "real success." I hope you will elaborate.
I've noticed a lot of founders are building bigger and bigger things and still calling it MVP. Thoughts on how to focus the energy to more customer development than product development early on? Wasn't that the point? Focus on the high risk part?
Let me clarify one thing, though, which is that when we call a company "good" or "bad" we can't mean something like absolutely good or evil. No human enterprise can ever be truly perfect.
So, rather, we have to identify what an organization is trying to do and whether the means it has chosen are actually appropriate to that goal. Then we can judge if the goal is aligned with human flourishing (good) or not (bad), and whether the org is consistent in pursuit of that goal (good) or not (bad), and whether it has the strength to continue (good) or not (bad).
HR has been receiving a lot of positive and negative attention over the last 8 years, culminating lately with some CEOs notably eliminating the HR org entirely. Do you see HR as a positive , negative or mixed force for driving “Incorruptibility “ ?
There's a whole chapter on this. I actually hate the phrase "human resources," because of course part of the problem with our modern world is that we are treating human beings as a resource to be mined.
If people had paid more attention to the pioneering management theorist, Mary Parker Follett, who wrote more than a century ago, we wouldn't be in this mess. But of course, her work was almost entirely erased and forgotten, only rediscovered in the 1990s.
Don't worry, I have a whole chapter about this in the new book.
I've just seen this problem up close and personal for a lot of years in a row. I'm sick and tired of helping people become rich and miserable, creating great companies only for them to be destroyed out of the gates. What is the point of all this carnage? Who is it for?
Books like this are for tech bros what horoscopes are for sad old ladies.
They are full of platitudes that sound relevant to people's problems and desires, that pretend to be based on science but have no actual basis in facts, provably do not work, and yet are still popular amongst the people they let down again and again.
Anyone who could write a book with advice that worked the way this purports to would be too rich to need Kickstarter to fund his books, for a start.
My friend, I know you think this is a criticism. It's pretty obvious that you haven't read the book. I'd encourage you to do so, or at least ask yourself, "Why are you commenting on a book you haven't read?" The answer must be that you're upset about a different book or about a whole class of books that have done you wrong. That's fair. I know what you're talking about. But for what it's worth, I tried really hard to make this book different. If you check the end notes, you'll see that I drew on quite a lot of research to try and make a series of evidence-based claims.
And if you really want to live in a world where people should be listened to on the basis of how rich they are, well, you don't really need to change anything, now do you?
My friend, I know you think you're defending your position well, but you've done the opposite. Scrolling to the bottom of the comments and seeing this response from you is like speedrunning your books' one-star reviews and coming to the definitive conclusion that it's not for me. Thanks for saving my time.
I didn't want to be seen as trying to co-opt Cory's thesis or (very memorable) phrase. His critique is more focused on the tech industry and its particular illness at this time.
I wanted a word that was much broader, capturing how this tech behavior is one symptom of a larger illness that has been afflicting our economy for some time. So I settled on the old-fashioned term "corruption"
Meanings are contested. The way I use the word is much closer to the way our grandparents used the word than our modern usage. How did it change? Could it change back? I think so.
I worked at Anthropic, and I wouldn't attribute much to the structure itself – so I'm wary of using it as a positive example here.
I do attribute a lot to specific people. Concretely, to much of the intitial team, who they recruited on the research/infra side, and some very close personal relationships within research/infra. That dynamic, paired with their unwillingness to accede to something against their values, is what I credit for some atypical decisions and outcomes [1].
Things regulary go "corrupt" in parts of the company; it's hard to scale without importing culture from big tech. Sometimes, the defense was ICs escalating issues, Dario talking to ICs, and then shaking things up.
But this process takes time, and it doesn't lead to a full reversal; a bad/misaligned hire has reverberating impacts. Many folks are still driven by values (even if their values are not your values!), but scaling dynamics seem to be evolving like any other org – just at a higher employee count and revenue numbers.
I do place trust in specific people who work at Anthropic, but I wouldn't place trust in Anthropic the organization. It's an organization that's wont to change, regardless of its structure.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47174423
Your comment is very astute. A structure is like a shell. It can only protect what is within. It does not cause what's within to be vital, healthy, or unhealthy. But if you think that the courage that Dario has regularly shown would be possible with a conventional "best practices" structure, I think you're kidding yourself.
> If you think that the courage that Dario has regularly shown would be possible with a conventional "best practices" structure, I think you're kidding yourself.
Is there something that happened which you don't think would have come to pass with a standard PBC/C-Corp (without the LTBT)? I'm trying to think of one, but nothing is coming to mind.
I think the structure attracted many people to Anthropic (e.g. an RSP that could only be overridden by the LTBT), but I'm not sure it has demonstrated a practical impact.
As an aside, I think a lot about this problem too! But the answers that don't reduce to something like "the people, and the people to whom they give power" seem to break down when I look closely.
Do you think their dispute with the Department of Defense would have gone the same way? We didn't see that at OpenAI or Google.
(Although it does remind me a bit of Google pulling out of China back in the day.)
I was at Google when it pulled out of China. GP's post reminds me a lot of early Google - it wasn't evil because there were people in high places, who were critical to its operations, who cared deeply about doing the right thing, and as a result other people who cared about doing the right thing felt like they had cover, and people who were willing to do the wrong thing to hit a short-term number found that they were marginalized. It changed slowly, one departure at a time, as the wrong people got into positions of power and started providing cover to people willing to do the wrong thing. A lot of it also had to do with declining market power: when Google was universally on top, they felt like they could do the right thing without serious negative consequences, but when they were fighting for control of a market, they felt they had to make compromises lest some other firm (being honest: Facebook) would end up in power and do the wrong thing anyway.
Unfortunately there doesn't really seem to be a cure for institutional decay. Once unethical people get in power, they hire other unethical people, and then you're just stuck in Game of Thrones. You have to go quit and found another company, and single-mindedly keep all those people away, kinda like Anthropic did when they left OpenAI.
Yeah, I lean towards the structure not being the cause of the outcome here (i.e. if you rotated the governance structure of Anthropic and OpenAI, I think the decision would likely be the same).
If they made that decision and it destroyed revenue, I could see an alternate timeline where a standard C-Corp + board with non-founder control may have ousted leadership. But that wasn't the situation for OpenAI or Google either, and their leadership still made a different decision.
> But if you think that the courage that Dario has regularly shown would be possible with a conventional "best practices" structure, I think you're kidding yourself.
With respect to OP (who has a unique vantage from inside), I do agree with this on principle. When there are uncommon outcomes, there must be uncommon structure imho. A "good structure" is like oxygen, water, or peace: When it's well-maintained and well-distributed, one might not even notice it's there, nor spend much time being grateful for it. It's banal, but "what do you mean? isn't this just how things would always have been?" is both beautiful and tragic.
Imho if we could figure out how to have a "loud peace" (in all the ways that this might mean), we'd have figured out an important way of sustaining the world and ourselves.
The structure requires maintenance and that is done by an individual or individuals. The real reasons a good company stays good is because the leadership stays good. When the leadership begins to disengage or leaves or changes in some way then the structure will begin to break down. You can't fix it with a "better" structure. It will decay over time unless someone is actively maintaining it.
I think I agree..!
I get the sense you were feeling at odds with my framing? I wonder if it's that you're picking up that I believe "structure" is above any one person or set of people. In my conception, leadership is just part of structure, a key maintainer. Leadership are pieces of the structure, but subordinate in scale. They sometimes seek outside help in shaping structure (e.g., ppl like eries), and the structure becomes like another passive actor, not simply "leadership's doing". Leadership are key players taking care of the structure, but they are just one set of players, and in some structures, non-leadership employees play an outsized role (often because leadership knew enough to step back). Sometimes the role of leadership if "fucking right off" in certain domains. Regardless, the structure then guides behaviour of all within it, and hopefully the structure also maintains us, at least as much as we maintain it.
I'm stating the above as if it's universally true, but it's just my take. I'd be curious to know if any parts give you strong YES or NO feelings, if you are open to share your gut reaction. Blunt responses welcome
(Fwiw I lean heavily on the ideas of Christopher Alexander -- the Pattern Language guy -- in regards to my beliefs on "structure": https://dorian.substack.com/p/at-any-given-moment-in-a-proce... )
Were those upright people abducted by aliens when you started working with Palantir and the "DoW"?
Having values doesn't mean they're "the right" values nor the same as your values.
Regardless, it's still atypical in the context of an American company, and it can help explain the differences between Anthropic and its peers. That doesn't mean I agree with their decisions or that they're "the right" decisions, but I think it's a helpful framing in which to understand them.
It will be interesting to see how many of those companies remain "incorruptible". Your new book seems a bit like a sequel to Jim Collins's 2001 book Good to Great. Several of the "great" companies including Circuit City, Fannie Mae, and Wells Fargo later ran into serious problems. And from an investor perspective, as a group they have underperformed the S&P 500.
https://www.harpercollins.com/products/good-to-great-jim-col...
> And from an investor perspective, as a group they have underperformed the S&P 500.
This should be kind of obvious -- if they are avoiding doing awful things in the name of money, then they are leaving something on the table. You can't have your cake and eat it too. This is why the real solution is some kind of governance/regulation, because otherwise the market incentivizes being awful.
I doubt there is a statistical correlation between stock market performance and "avoiding doing awful things," though obviously we would need some way to quantify "avoiding doing awful things" before we can evaluate this hypothesis.
If the definition of "awful" is broad enough, I imagine most public companies will fall in the "awful" bucket, regardless of their performance. If "awful" is going to mean something truly extraordinarily bad like dumping mercury into a well or whatever, I would still guess there is no correlation as I've read horrifying stories of corporate behavior at companies with mediocre stock performance.
As a note, Wells Fargo is underperforming for doing terrible things and getting caught multiple times.
well, eric's book tries to make the point that these good companies DO overperform the market. after reading the book this past week, im not convinced. feels like heavy selection bias.
Actually you can have your cake and eat it too. Market incentives aren't awful in most cases. The worst incentives are actually stock standard owner/manager misalignment (or "principal agent problem") whereby the agents are short term oriented because they are comped that way.
I want to appreciate you for this comment, even though I disagree with it, because this is a really articulate version of the conventional wisdom that I think all of us have imbibed since before we could talk.
For that to be the case, wouldn't that mean that companies are awful not in the name of money but just because they're evil?
I don't understand your comment. Companies like Netflix, Old Dominion Freight Line, Nvidia, Comfort Systems USA, and Intuitive Surgical have all significantly outperformed the S&P 500. What "awful" things have they done in the name of money?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Netflix
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia#Controversies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_Systems_USA#Anti-union...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitive_Surgical#Lawsuits
Depending on your political leanings, you may pick and choose which of these you consider "awful".
Didn't find anything in my five-minute scan for Old Dominion.
> if they are avoiding doing awful things in the name of money, then they are leaving something on the table
That doesn't stand as a reason at all. I think the big contrast isn't as you described. It's more about short-term versus long-term or conflict of interest between principals and shareholders.
But to be specific, Wells Fargo was mentioned, and their downfall was very much driven by doing awful things in the name of money, specifically.
yeah, this is very much the challenge with writing any kind of business book: the book is frozen in time yet the companies grow and change. I tried really really hard not to put any company up on a pedestal, or even make any forward-looking predictions, but merely to show how each company illustrates a specific concept from the book.
My biggest struggle with this question is that "going bad" sometimes coincides with not just financial incentives, but also more people getting value out of it. For example Spotify gradually shifting from "we make it easy to curate and share playlists" to "we make them for you to use as background music constantly." Sometimes what's bad for the early power user is great for the late adopter, and it's difficult to make any kind of broad judgment about whether the change is better or worse.
What do you say to this interpretation? In particular do you think most cases could be framed as "the key audience/customer/market has shifted"? Is it possible to find greater financial success while doing things the primary audience doesn't like?
They study aspects of this phenomenon in UI design. There is a constant struggle between power users and novices, and a good UI absolutely cannot cater to both. Which means that over the life of a product, its UIs will tend to get more complicated and inscrutable as your user base levels up. Adobe products are often cited as prime examples.
This, of course, makes on boarding and new user acquisition harder, and can severely limit product growth. And this also leaves space for simpler products to come along and cater to the novice market. Or, companies can fight this tendency, and remove features, or make them harder to use, in order to cater to less demanding demographics.
What I'd be curious about is what spotify looks like as their market share levels off. Do they keep catering to the automatic playlist crowd, or does their average user get more sophisticated over time?
I don't have the link in front of me, but someone who used to work at Spotify wrote a really nice reflection about this change through the lens of incorruptible over on LinkedIn. If someone can find it and post it here, that'd be great. If not, I'll try to remember to come back and post it later.
I think these changes very rarely have to do with what customers want shifting, but when people say "the market," they are often confused about whether they're talking about customers or our financial markets. Frankly, it's far more often for this kind of correction to originate in the pressure from financial markets than any other single source.
I'm not just talking about where the initial pressure comes from, but the effects of the changes. I guess the question becomes about how easily these layers get disentangled. E.g. things investors like that then result in lower sales? Things that result in greater sales but that the customers don't actually like?
Naively of course it seems like investors don't like it when sales go down, so there'd be an extremely tight link between financial market and product market feedback. But I imagine you disagree, that this breaks down easily and creates problems?
The LinkedIn post: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/incorruptible-spotify-brendan...
Eric - I've worked for NASA, ATT, IBM, HP, Amazon, and Google, not to mention a couple of startups that I started in between. None of them (except the startups, but they were brief) stayed true to their original mission. I haven't read your new book, but IMO, it's because the founders leave and the next leadership don't share the vision or values of the founders in the same way. After all, a company is a collaboration among people who want to make a contribution. When the people change, the company changes. It's inevitable.
That said, you seem to have archetypes above Costco, Patagonia, and Novo Nordisk that avoided it.
Can you comment on not what it takes to build such a company, but rather how to transform companies like those that I worked for into ones that resist gravity? Or is it too late?
One of the sad truths that the book tries to confront about the world we live in today: that most companies simply fail the test of succession. This does not have to be the reality that we live in. It is absolutely 100% possible to build organizations to resist gravity and even to transform organizations that have fallen into its clutches. The fact that this is rare tells you something about the incentive design and values of our current financial system. This is not a law of nature.
I don't really think there's a short way for me to answer this question without having to summarize the entire book. This is what it's about. I'll simply say that the second part of the book, what I call "The Blueprint," is about both the governance and leadership tools that we have available to us to turn these organizations into the long-term, mission-driven, incorruptible places we all want to work at.
Like a lot of things, bad actors only have to get you to fail the test of succession once while the company has to succeed at it every time. Time is not on any companies side here and the longer it goes the more failing that test of succession starts to look like a law of nature.
To be clear: yes, it’s possible, it’s not too late. Read the book.
> how a handful of companies (like Costco[..]) have successfully been structured to resist gravity
"I came to (Jim Sinegal) once and I said, ‘Jim, we can’t sell this hot dog for a buck fifty," Jelineck recalled[..]. "We are losing our rear ends.’ And he said, ‘If you raise the effing hot dog, I will kill you."
That's not structure, that's leadership. They were about to change the price, but one guy at the top with authority and an opinion said no. You could say "it's structure" that there was one guy at the top with authority, but it still depends on him having the right opinion. You need both a good structure and an unwaveringly idealistic (and correct) leader.
I love that you asked this question, although, of course, you didn't actually phrase it as a question, because this quote is literally in the book. I addressed this particular misconception as it relates specifically to Costco, because I myself once fell victim to the same misconception.
If you think Costco has endured only because of leadership, because of its strong ethos and its immense size, because you think it's just too big for Wall Street to mess with, you are not correct. My friend, nothing is too big for Wall Street to mess with. Wall Street has tried many times to dismantle Costco's ethos, and every time the unique structure of Costco is what has allowed them to resist.
The parent comment didn’t say anything about size or wall street. It said leadership is what has preserved it.
Which it doesn’t seem you have refuted in any meaningful way. You just restated what the parent comment is responding to with no further reasoning as to why leadership doesn’t account for it.
I honestly don't understand your comment, so let me try and recapitulate what I think you're saying and what I think I was saying, and then you can tell me where I missed the mark.
What I hear you saying is that the original comment simply said that leadership by itself is enough to preserve the Costco ethos. It didn't say anything about size or Wall Street or anything else. Is that right?
The reason I responded the way that I did is that the claim that something by itself is enough has to explain why most companies are able to be destroyed, even though they have really good leadership. I think the common answer when people ask about Costco is that the reason why, for them, leadership was enough when it hasn't been for other people, is something like they're so large. Does that make sense?
Either way, in order to say that leadership by itself is sufficient, we have to figure out why Costco has been able to endure as a gigantic public company when, for most companies, the larger they become, the more valuable they become as a target. Meaning that Wall Street or other financial forces will intervene to change their values.
And the answer, which I lay out in the book (not in my original comment), is that Costco is protected by a very distinctive thing I call a "governance fortress." This fortress (and not merely their leadership) is the reason why they have been able to endure for forty years.
In fact, the predecessor company of Costco, spiritually speaking, was a company called FedMart that had the leadership and ethos but did not have the fortress. I'll leave it to you to read to find out what happened to them.
> That's not structure, that's leadership. [...] one guy at the top [...] said no.
Yeah, there's no rule structure that can't be skirted and subverted by new owners with different objectives. The most resilient way to preserve your values is to:
Your successors don't need to be your literal children, but if you turn your company over to "strangers with money" you can't be surprised when they do what they want with their new possession.It is true that most companies fail the test of succession. Even in the comment that you've made here, we've left unanswered the question of who will decide who should be chosen as the successor? That is something that can be influenced, but only at the institutional or structural level of an organization. Obviously, more details in the book.
> We are losing our rear ends.’ And he said, ‘If you raise the effing hot dog, I will kill you."
It sounds like a really toxic working environment. I sincerely hope they made up this story as an ad about how cheap their hot dog is.
Are you using Vale? Or is this just default Fable?
this made me laugh, thank you for brightening my day. this is not just humor -- it's therapy.
Hi Eric, I enjoyed The Lean Startup.
You used the phrase "our industry". Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the 'tech industry' concept, simply because a lot of startups are not in software/computing, and a lot of new technology isn't either. But I get what people mean.
I notice that the companies you mention like Costco and Patagonia are not in the tech industry. Does your new book have any examples which show how to stay incorruptible in the face of the network effects that drive monopolization in the tech industry? Alternatively, have you seen workable ways to split network effects amongst networked affiliates, to spread out the market power?
I know that most founders aren't exactly looking to make a startup with a lot of competition (I'm sure not), but it would be nice to know if someone is fixing problems specific to the 'tech industry'.
Just dropping in to thank you for writing this book and raising awareness around it. A lot of builders are really disillusioned by how "corruptible" the tech industry has been.
I wrote a blog post called "Revenue Model is More Important than Culture" (it made the #1 spot on HackerNews a few years ago) arguing that the way to avoid that corruption is by making sure the business model is immune to it, but having read your thoughts, I'd say your argument (structure being the dominant term) is even stronger.
I wish I had read that blog post because that is one of the chapters in the new book. I actually think that the phrase "mission-driven" for most companies is a total lie. They are at best "mission-hopeful". In fact, I tried to create a new term for the work that is required: the management system, leadership techniques, and structural elements that are required to 100% align the business model with the mission. I call it "mission drive," as if it was an engine you could install and maintain.
I like the mix of management/leadership/structure. I do think leadership is an important aspect, and leaders who are uncompromising can have a big impact.
It's funny we both land on Google as a main example. I had this quote "I’m going to pick on Google a little bit here, but I do love that company. I think there’s a lot it can improve on, but it’s still one of my favorite and least “evil” large tech companies.", and honestly and sadly, I don't even know if I'd agree with the latter part of that statement anymore.
Maybe "mission-chauffeured." Revenue/business model is in the driver's seat and the mission just comes along for the ride and adapts to wherever the car is going.
An entrepreneur I used to admire a great deal was once described to me this way: "So and so doesn't do what's right. He makes whatever he does right." Ever since I heard that phrase, I haven't been able to unsee it in so many founders who I think sincerely want to do the right thing, but their ego gets in the way.
Hi Eric, I enjoyed the book during "solve.it" course (Closed reading). Reading it again second time.
For those that want to go deeper with _Incorruptible_, I've spent the past few months doing hundreds of interviews and events discussing its various themes and topics. I'm having Claude Code summarize this progress along the way at https://howisincorruptiblegoing.com/
You can also see the various accolades, reviews, and awards that it's accumulated so far.
I agree with your premise that the unethical behavior in the markets is structural. I also commend your work on this book. The creation of the LTSE is also a huge and laudable accomplishment. Kudos!
However, I have to express some skepticism that through regulations and reforms, we can reverse the entire incentive structure for public investment to be aligned with stewardship rather than extraction. How do you plan to defy the "financial gravity" between you and this dream?
Finally, I think that Claude Code has misinterpreted your request to summarize your interviews and events. Instead, it created a marketing and promotional website with not a summary to be found!
As an author, I'm navigating SO many angry people who are enraged at the idea of using AI tools in writing. How are you managing that?
As the old joke goes, "Very, very carefully."
I used AI extensively in the research, editing, and promotion phases of creating the book (and even shared screen with a few podcast hosts who wanted to see the solveit platform from Answer.AI up close). To be clear, I never let the AI write for me; I am not a fan of "vibe creating" of any kind. Instead, I tried to use the AI to improve my own skills so that the final artifact was better than it would have been before.
I know people are up in arms about this right now, but shouldn't at least some of blame for that fall on the tech industry itself, for how these tools are designed, promoted, and sold? I think in the long run, society will achieve a more healthy equilibrium. But in the meantime, it's gonna be a bit rocky.
Good points - I'm of the same mind. Thanks for reminding me that I'm not crazy!
I haven't read the new book yet, but I'd be interested in your take on Disney's trajectory over the last, say, 2 decades. It seems to have strayed pretty far from Walt's original vision, largely due to the actions of Bob Iger. He took what used to be a company that was fueled by creativity and turned it into a machine that strip mines IP and extracts value. Iger purchased IP (Pixar, Lucasfilm, Marvel, Fox) as a risk mitigation strategy since you get an established brand you can exploit on day 1. But in doing so he killed the soul of Disney, which was built on big creative bets (literally sell the car to make a movie, mortgage the house to build a park).
I recently had the chance to meet Abigail Disney, who has been a very vocal critic of what's happened to her grandfather's ethos. It sounds quite sad.
I recently left Disney after working there for almost 5 years. It's much worse on the inside than people realize. Very sad indeed.
Any thoughts on bootstrapping a SaaS in the AI era? Is it more manageable because a single person can leverage more? Or more difficult because of increased resource needs and customer demands? And also how that factors into starting an "incorruptible" company today.
Any time you have a technological change, it's kind of confusing to figure out how it can apply to entrepreneurs. On the one hand, it makes it so much easier to create a new MVP, makes it easier to create distribution and to get connected to customers, to do many of the techniques that lean startup demands. On the other hand, that same capability is now in the hands of thousands or even millions of other people, including other people creating startups to compete with you and the incumbents you're trying to disrupt. It's always an open question whether the so-called attacker's advantage will overcome the so-called defender's advantage with any given technology.
In terms of the thesis of Incorruptible, though, I do think that LLMs in particular should be really, really advantageous for managers and leaders who want to create alignment and coherence within their own company. If there's anything that LLMs are extremely good at, it's summarization. So much of the modern leadership challenge is simply figuring out the answer to the question: what is my organization actually doing right now? That's a summarizing problem.
Isn’t “what” the easy part? I thought the leadership is more about why they are doing what they are doing and why is that important/not important. Something which LLMs are not great at today, but aren’t terrible and can make some good guesses at times.
No question, really - just wanted to say thanks for evangelizing this topic. I'm originally a medical doctor who converted to the ways of computer science, now a founder in the bio space. One thing I've consistently wrestled with is how to structurally defend our company's ability to "first, do no harm." I think the misguided incentives you raise warning about are also the primary reason for the defects we see in our (American) healthcare system today, particularly with the grievances toward big pharma and the insurance industry. So I was pumped watching your interview with Garry a few weeks back, currently working on applying it to our own little lemonade stand.
The founders and business models of Costco, Patagonia and Novo Nordisk are so radically different from so-called "tech startup" founders^1 that one must consider this in any analysis
1. Who lack a legitimate business model hence have resorted to "data collection from/about computer users, surveillance of computer users even when engaged in non-commercial activity and online advertising services" with generally free, so-called "products" and "services" offered as bait
"There's a darkness in our industry that we often don't talk about."
It's "talked" about on HN but voters and commenters working for or aspiring to start/work for these companies don't like the discussion
100% probability this comment will be greyed out to try to hide it from people using graphical web browsers (no effect on monochrome text-only browser users)
The people that start "tech" companies are often soulless and maladapted to society, having hid behind computers to escape their inability to deal with the real world. There are also "tech startups" founded by people who want to take advantage of those who have hidden behind computers and lack social skills, using them as pawns
These founders and pawns do not start, nor do they want to work for, companies like Costco, Patagonia or Novo Nordisk because they only believe in what they see on a computer screen not the real world. They want to operate in Silicon Valley fantasy land
It really isn't surprising what happens to so-called "tech" companies over time considering what they start from
"The people that start "tech" companies are often soulless and maladapted to society, having hid behind computers to escape their inability to deal with the real world".
Yes. Of course.
You cannot trust anyone to have a rounded mind unless they have actually done more than one thing, broadly speaking.
Having worked at one of these companies, I don't buy for one second, that these companies are not obsessed with financial benefit. You would be an absolute idiot to believe that.
These "tech startup" founders do not start, nor do the pawns want to work in the IT departments of, companies like Costco, Patagonia or Novo Nordisk because they only believe in what they see on a computer screen not the real world. They want to be in Silicon Valley fantasy land, not the regulated environments that Costco and Novo Nordick operate in. They worship obscene Silicon Valley wealth, they are beholden to venture capital investors and they want to build data centers. The environment is an afterthought. This is the opposite of the guy who founded Patagonia. For him the environment is forethought, and time in front of a computer is not what's important in life^1
1. Yes, I am aware Patagonia has made some mistakes with maufacturing
Bit of an stretch here.
I’m downvoting because this article is an AMA. There’s a very smart person you could ask any question you wanted. What is your question?
Is it realistic to make organizations that stay on mission long after the founder is gone?
I listened to a podcast interview you did where you talked positively about the Novo Nordisk Foundation as a successful governance story, but when I think of long lived foundations, I think of the Ford Foundation and the Hewlet Foundation that have significantly drifted from the founders' visions despite being non-profits. Many people think it is better for foundations to spend down all their resources before the founder is gone to prevent this drift and loss of efficacy.
Have you done any studies of what made long lived foundations drift on their mission despite no profit incentive?
I'm not an academic, so no, I have not done any of these studies, but good news, everyone: other people have. The specific structure of Nova Nordisk is not just a foundation. I think the two-entity structure, where a foundation oversees or governs a for-profit company, is uniquely suited to longevity of a mission precisely because it combines the stewardship orientation of the foundation with the performance orientation of the for-profit subsidiary. The data shows (for what it's worth) that such structures are five or six times more likely to live to year 50 compared to a standard for-profit company. I give examples in the book also of pure foundations that have lost this structure or have lost their mission integrity too. I really think you need both for it to endure.
Do you have any thoughts on Mozilla? It has a two-entity structure, but there are a lot of complaints that it is not sticking to its mission (or, slightly differently, that it's not succeeding at it, due to poor strategic choices).
(Apologies if you already addressed this somewhere. Thanks for doing this)
Reminds me of the question “why do good people go bad?” What are invisible forces? What is good? What is evil? Physicists, philosophers and theologians alike think about those questions.
Do those questions need a foundation on which they stand to be answered? What is that foundation (are there relative foundations or are they by definition absolute?)?. Is there a moral standard that those handful of companies share? Similar to “success factors”, are there “success ethics” in your perspective?
What would be the elements of success ethics that others can learn from?
My book arrived today.
Q1: You have done a few friendly interviews on YouTube, but I haven't seen one that challenges you much. Do you know if there are upcoming interviews that you found pushed back?
Q2: Is the idea of shareholder supremacy fundamentally at odds with your with your preferred alternative governance structures, or is it just a time preference and risk attitude issue?
Q3: You will get sympathetic ears easily due to the subject matter. But the same book about non-profits would be a harder sell. Do you agree, and if true does that say something about the marketplace of ideas?
Honestly, there hasn't been that much pushback, and I've done something like 200 interviews for the book. I think it might have to do with the fact that we all secretly kind of agree with this thesis, even though we know we're not supposed to say so out loud. I'm sure there will be some pushback coming, especially if the book starts to become more popular or gets more famous.
Though I did get a pretty funny piece of pushback on one consulting company's podcast. The person said, "But wait a second, I learned in business school that everything you're saying here is wrong. Are you asking me to rethink that?" Something like that. I said, "Well, are you interested in looking at the evidence that what I'm saying is the truth?"
I think he was really genuinely struggling, because I don't think he was that interested. Many of us are not that interested in seeing the evidence that the things we believe or were taught are not quite true.
Q2: shareholder primacy is a bad idea on its own terms, as I lay out in the book. It doesn't prevent people from adopting any of governance structures I recommend, it just makes it more difficult, by creating career incentives that add friction to doing the right thing. That's partly why it's so value-destroying.
Q3: I don't understand this question, sorry. Maybe it's because I've spent many lonely years being berated for this subject matter and am only getting the sympathetic treatment lately...
Q3: Direct question: Have journalists and their industries been similarly corrupted from their proclaimed mission to communicate the truth? Do the issues in other groups of people (charity, religion, sport league) share the same root causes, or is the source of corporate corruption unique or at a different scale?
Thanks for doing this, Eric. I'm about halfway through Incorruptible and loving it so far.
Do you have any recommendations for entity formation infra that caters to mission driven companies? Something like Stripe Atlas that can form the more complex structures? Forming a PBC is becoming more standard but tthe other structures seem more esoteric (and expensive).
I got so frustrated that this is so difficult for people at the early stages to do with most law firms that I actually helped start a new law firm (called Virgil) to do it properly.
Virgil is an AI-powered law firm, but it doesn't let the AI do the legal work for you. It actually hires and trains human lawyers to become AI-powered superhumans. It handles lots of the really unpleasant back-office crap that early-stage companies absolutely hate dealing with, from payroll to compliance and a lot of finance stuff.
Of course it also does full-service legal work. Because I'm involved, it is specialized in setting up mission protective structures for startups. We have worked really hard to drive the cost of such structures down.
In fact, many of the implementation guides that you can access from the book if you scan the various QR codes were developed in partnership with Virgil. If you want to DIY it, I think we've given you enough information to do so, including sample templates, term sheets, documents, etc. If you prefer a low-cost, flat-fee subscription, Virgil is also there to help you at any time. The URL is tryvirgil.com.
(And you are welcome to use Virgil alongside your established high-prestige high-cost firm, too, if you prefer to do that. It will still save you considerable amounts of money)
Thanks a ton! I have called several local firms about these structures and it hasn't been very successful (note; i have complex requirements in addition to wanting the protections in your book).
One other thing i've grappled with while reading the book is this:
Some of the internal issues you describe seem to come from companies growing too big. The Founders who lose control, weakening culture etc. The size of a company seems to correlate with so many issues (not all related to financial gravity).
I wonder how much pain can be avoided by just staying small (employee count).
Thanks again for the book(s). It feels very mission driven which perfect.
Hi Eric, I worked for IMVU shortly after you left and tbh I didn't see a ton of "lean startup" ideas implemented well. And today, company is not healthy.
Why do you think IMVU never hit escape velocity?
Well, there is a reason that I left after all. What's funny is that, although IMVU is today mostly famous because it appears in "The Lean Startup," many of the people who were there at the time were quite annoyed with me and found the ideas grating or even irritating. It reminds me of that old quote that "nobody is a prophet in their own hometown." Well, that kind of happened to me.
What happened in the years since? I don't really know. The company has not been in close touch with me, so I can only speculate or guess.
Do you think that building what the "market wants" (finding traction/gold, and leaning into that) comes at the cost of people (not) making and promoting "things that should exist" (e.g., companies and products/services aligned with ideal visions of the world they want to be in)?
If so, how is the tradeoff justified? (Make money first, then do "ideal" things?)
If not, why not? (Other than that it's unsuccessful strategically/statistically and wasteful, I guess.)
Any elaboration/response on this theme would be appreciated. Thanks!
I'd encourage you to study the story of Tony's Chocolonely. I included a version of that story in chapter 12 of the new book.
Tony's make some of the most delicious chocolate in the world, but their mission is actually to eradicate child slavery in the production of cocoa. I bring this up because before Tony's, it was widely assumed that "the market" didn't care about child exploitation. They just wanted delicious chocolate. Yet Tony's found a way to prove that this was not true.
The more general lesson is that many of the stories we tell ourselves about "what the market wants" are mere fabrications or just-so stories designed to make us feel better about how crappy our alternatives are. Sometimes it just takes a bold entrepreneur to show us that we already collectively are committed to a different set of ideals. We've just never had the opportunity to vote with our wallets to make it happen.
What are your thoughts on the big tech CEOs and the current administration?
A lot of big organizations have absorbed a Lean Startup POV -- don't debate, just ship an MVP and measure. But in practice, we're usually measuring a proxy metric, it's a short-term test, the audience may be unrepresentative and because of all this, the result doesn't generalize.
What do you think an experiment needs before it can actually be called learning? And what kinds of product questions should not be done as experiments at all?
There's a whole chapter on this question in the new book, so I won't try to summarize it here, but just encourage you to check it out.
Hey Eric!
How often do you see companies recover from financial gravity? Or is it mostly irreversible?
How much do you attribute worsening of company values to things like professional managers, too much hierarchy, and less founder-mode; versus financial gravity?
In a case like GitHub where their focus seems less on open-source these days, should developers try to help GitHub better support open-source or should the focus be on building alternatives?
Thanks, Jake
You've framed this question as if these things are separate phenomena, but from my point of view, they are all symptoms of the same underlying cause. The sad truth is that, as I say in the book, "It's always too early until it's too late." The truth is we don't ever know if something is too late until we try. If you love an organization and you think you have the opportunity to try to help them get better, go for it. If you decide they've abandoned their ethos, I definitely think you should help support and build the alternative.
For reasons I try to explain in the book, open source in particular is an example of the kind of mission-driven positive externality type of business that our modern best practices make it hard for people to see and understand. This is going to be a recurring problem in the free software and open source movements for years to come unless we get smarter about these forces.
I've read The Lean Startup during undergrad and it was a bible to me at the time, thank you for your work, you got me into startup culture in a place where everyone else did not support of it.
One question I have for you is on finances, I think that still remains an afterthought in startup hustle culture, and perhaps even by design, I feel like the system is designed so that VCs keep winning and founders rarely get the exit they deserve. What is your take on that?
> the system is designed so that VCs keep winning
The way around that is to not take VC money. There are some (not many) startups that got to unicorn status by bootstrapping and not taking outside money. It's harder, yes, but in a way a more pure effort.
When starting a company, perhaps it’s best to consider something you love doing so much that staying there and nurturing the business is more important than exiting.
That and, don’t accept money from strangers. :)
Thank you for saying that. When I wrote that book, people like you were very much in my mind at the time. I'm really glad to hear you found it useful, even if the people around you didn't understand or support what you were trying to do.
You're quite right. There are many, many problems with the current "best practices" including that many founders wind up with nothing even if the organization succeeds. In fact, one study I cite in the book found that something like 80% of founders of venture-backed companies will no longer be CEO even three years after an IPO.
> In fact, one study I cite in the book found that something like 80% of founders of venture-backed companies will no longer be CEO even three years after an IPO.
Why? Is there something that inherently prevents founders to remain in control after IPO?
Yes, it's called today's governance "best practices." Many of them are actually quite value-destroying, and founders should run for the hills every time they hear that phrase.
Eric - enjoyed your talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VKliOQXQ9M&t=1s .
What can a founder do to safeguard his position, interests, and company? A couple of things that come to my mind are: have an aligned/friendly board who believe in you; second, have dual-class shares (like Meta, SpaceX, Google). Anything else you would like to add?
I wrote a whole book about it :)
Ha! I should have seen that coming :-)
Wouldn't simple (political) ponerology describe why does this happen to companies? It's the source of "hard times produce strong people, strong people produce good times..." cycle, and the observation that people who want to live easy lives embracing dark triad patterns slowly rise to the top, gaming perf stats, "playing the game", transforming the company/society underneath in the process.
that's cynical. companies aren't monoliths. there are constant struggles over priorities, resources , etc.
It might be somewhat cynical yet it seems to be fitting what is happening right now at Meta and previously happened at Amazon.
Any examples of corrupted companies that you’d like to share? I’m especially curious about your thoughts on Meta and Google, the biggest startups of their time and how they evolved.
I write about both companies (briefly) in the book. I've noticed in the comments I get from readers that people still feel very tenderly towards Google, remembering that incredible sense of idealism they instilled in so many of us when they went public. So I had to be very careful what I wrote about Google; I actually mostly left the critique to ex-Google employees, by quoting a dataset of people who had been at Google 10+ years and then wrote about their experience after leaving. Put together, those essay are heartbreaking.
By contrast, I can say pretty much anything about Facebook and nobody seems to care. Yet, if you go back and read their S-1, you can see how they very much wanted to be seen as the mission-driven good guys.
It's all quite sad, really. There are plenty more stories of corruption in the book. To be honest, it was a challenge to avoid having the whole thing read as bleak given how pervasive this corruption is today. I did my best to balance it out. You'll have to let me know if you think I got it right.
> So I had to be very careful what I wrote about Google
Can you say more about this? Do you think those tender feelings towards Google track some strain of values which Google still carries? Or does this statement reflect some fear of retaliation or conflict that would drown out the rest of your message?
Genuinely interested in how you think about this, especially in the context of this new book’s topic. Thank you for this AMA.
> Do you think those tender feelings towards Google track some strain of values which Google still carries?
I suspect that it's largely just that brand reputation tends to be very sticky in the minds of people.
It's the same reason that Pyrex, Harley-Davidson, and Dyson are still high reputation brands even though the product they make today is tragically worse than what gave them their initial reputation.
(I tend to think of private equity as often existing as an arbitrage system to take advantage of the fact that they can buy a loved brand, slash the quality and increase the profit, and continue to sell at its original price based on that brand stickiness for a while until people eventually wise up.)
> that incredible sense of idealism
The idealism that has been sucked out of the tech industry. It was so (naively) hopeful at one point, and now the arms race and profit-maximization has eroded it all. Your observations really resonate with me.
I'm surprised I hadn't heard of the Long-Term Stock Exchange, it seems like a much healthier direction for the market.
You might want to ask yourself why, in all these years, you haven't heard of it. There's quite a few people invested in keeping it that way.
> I write about … [Meta] in the book.
This mean you are now under gag order as you rise on the bestseller list? :)
Lean Startup is awesome, can’t wait to read your new. Excited to read about the ostensibly-not-evil Costcos of the world and hope the smartest & wealthiest amongst us grok it, that we win more when others win.
Thank you. I really appreciate your kind words, and I consider myself deeply fortunate that I've been able to speak my mind freely on these topics, at least so far.
I think you’re spot on. Facebook employees have accepted its fate. It has become a company of mercenaries. I’m surprised they folded more quickly than Google.
Neither of those have been corrupted . They both seem to be carrying out their long term strategy extremely well.
You frame corruption as financial gravity, fixable by governance design at the firm level. But the dollar's strength has been reinforced for fifty years by oil trading in dollars. Tying our money to a conflict asset implicated in war, pollution, and enormous suffering. Can any company be incorruptible inside a monetary system that isn't?
I think the evidence shows that the answer is yes.
I'm glad you're doing this. I am aware of _Incorruptible_ from seeing posts on LinkedIn, but from your description here, I now realize I'm going to love this book! I wasn't going to make time to check it out, but I will now!
Where does Apple fall on the Incorruptible spectrum? Is it covered in the book?
Looking forward to reading this. Still have a signed copy of The Lean Startup from an event in Seattle from 15 years ago. The book had a big part in pushing me towards doing my own lean startup just a year later, so, thank you.
thank you! I appreciate you sharing. As an author, you never get tired of hearing stories likethis.
I finished The Lean Startup a few days ago, and I really felt the power of the ideas you've shared there coming from a heavily technical background; incredible work.
It's already been 14+ years since you wrote the book; I wonder if a second edition is something you have in mind, or at least on your consideration list
Eric, really interested in how you pick the things you work on. I'm a really big fan of the concept of the Long Term Stock Exchange, but projects like that seem to me at times like paddling a canoe upstream using a spoon.
Whats your criteria? Is there an analytical component? Are you willing to work on something even if "success" is unlikely? And with all of this going on how do you have time to work on books!
thank you for your work by the way. It continues to be useful year after year to me and people around me!
I tend to use the metaphor of trying to carve the Grand Canyon with nothing more than water and gravity, but I appreciate you honoring and acknowledging the difficulty of this.
Honestly, I don't have formal criteria. I have young kids now, and I try to ask myself every once in a while, when they're old enough to really understand what I do for a living. When they ask me: "at that moment in history, what were you doing?" I want to be able to answer them and give them an answer that I and they will find satisfying.
I'll also be honest that I've my fill of conventional "success" in my life. I don't feel obligated to use the likelihood of success as a criterion anymore. I tend to just do the things that, in the moment, seem right to me. Or where it seems like, for whatever reason, no one else is willing or likely to try it, and I have been given that lonely assignment.
Many of the things that I've tried haven't worked out, but that's okay. I accept that that is a precondition of the kind of work I like to do.
Oh, and thank you for the kind words. It's much appreciated.
well, thank you for kicking ass and doing great work!
not a question just a comment - I read The Lean Startup years ago, still think about it about once a week. I regularly give away copies to people starting companies who I see going down a bad path with no tight feedback loop.
I’ve been thinking about what objective harnesses can be put around governance for companies and governments as well. Transparency dashboards, clearer real-time feedback mechanisms. What do you suggest especially for governments (local, or even larger). Keep thinking AI might actually help improve our feedback mechanisms given all the noise.
Yes, I do think this is something that LLMs should be very good at. As I've said in a couple of the comments in the thread, summarizing is LLMs' greatest superpower. But I have a whole chapter in the book about the use of metrics and, of course, their misuse. I'd be very cautious here. Government reformers have often assumed that just having better data will cause agencies to make better decisions, but this is simply not true. The choice about which data to pay attention to, whether to make decisions in a scientific or humane way, are values questions, not just data questions. They require the installation of a specific ethos in the organization to stay true to those values. Without that, more data will not have any effect whatsoever.
I've long been suspicious of the conflicts of interest induced by exit-orientated investment models.
I'm curious if you think cooperative businesses leveraging non-voting preferred shares, community shares and other coop investment instruments are more resilient against this type of corruption.
I'm wonder how you see the tradeoffs these models have against traditional LLC/VC models and how you would mitigate them.
I hate the word "exit" altogether. It's only the investors who are leaving Middle Earth; the rest of us are still try to make this thing work.
I address your question in much more detail in the book, using examples as varied as Mondragon in Spain, John Lewis Partnership in the UK, and Vanguard and credit unions here in the US.
We actually have pretty good evidence that these other structures are more resilient and more stable than the classic "best practices" we have all been indoctrinated into.
Unfortunately, most of us have been told that these approaches are incompatible. You either go "big" and try to make a lot of money, have investors, have a grand vision, etc. Or you go "small" and do something "ethical" and non-extractive. So many of us have been taught that it is the fate of the small to be destroyed by the big, since they are more ruthless and more powerful.
But the evidence doesn't really support this just-so story. My goal with the book is to help those who want to build mission-driven companies to realize that this is a source of strength, not weakness, and act accordingly.
Did you look at Patagonia Inc. as an example? I wasn't aware of the new book but am more interested in it now.
Thank you, I'm happy to hear you address these models and will definitely be reading your book!
I think we need a "middle path" culture that finds a good balance between these pressures and values.
> So many of us have been taught that it is the fate of the small to be destroyed by the big, since they are more ruthless and more powerful. But the evidence doesn't really support this just-so story.
This is the comment I came here to read. Thank you, I already have a copy of the book and intend to dig in more on these themes specifically.
As AI becomes more capable, it seems like a company can be a founding charter and a pool of cash to be spent on tokens to achieve the aims of that charter.
How do you feel about these AI only companies, and how do you think they could affect the wider market?
ref: https://www.ft.com/content/b8cc4bf4-6d3c-4974-8428-9a091983c...
I expect many of these so-called AI-only companies will actually involve quite a few humans. I think the general idea that AI could be really useful at helping an organization stay true to the mission or purpose in its charter is quite right. Although I still think, at the end of the day, humans should be in the loop and not just as an accountability sink, but really truly providing the creativity, the vision, and the direction of the whole organization.
Your first book was my like my bible, used many of the concepts when building gomacro.ai, at the same time found it so easy to get sucked into non-lean methodology. Very hard these days to come up with a sound idea, so many people building things that nobody asked for to begin with and in the age of AI its even more so the case. Best of luck with the new one, will give it a read!
Thanks for doing this - I'm an author, and my working theory is that every author is a one-person startup, so I try to think about lean startup principles when I think about the business of being an author.
How do you think Lean Startup principles could be applied to ordinary families looking to navigate the existing economic stresses we're experiencing?
Re: your point about being an author, that has always been my approach, too. For this new book, I took in a metric ton of customer feedback (I had over 600 test readers generate more than 10,000 comments) and it really helped the final product. The challenge, of course, is always how to take in external feedback without losing your vision
I've been a bit reluctant to over-generalize from my own theories, and so am not sure I would want to speculate about how to apply them in a family context.
Gotcha; good call. Thanks for getting back. :)
hi Eric, the 'lean startup' & the work you & Steve Blank did was revolutionary in terms of getting products to market quicker.
what are the 'slower' go to market channels that you've seen produce sustainable results also producing sustainable businesses. not the come fast, die fast kind ?
Coming from the blockchain space, but wanting to build something with bright patterns, while also using DLT and crypto, has been painful, to say the least.
I would like to know how best to stand out from the toxic, finance-driven world that is defi and crypto generally, without getting rolled in with all the clowns. Of course, I know that clear messaging and verifiable, evidence-driven claims are good, but I am thinking about the more abstract, strategic side to things, which I still feel under-prepared for.
I appreciate that you're being honest about this challenge. In the book, I actually say that one of the problems with our modern economy is that we've created too many ways to make money without creating any value at all, in fact sometimes even by destroying value. When I give this talk in public settings, I'll sometimes have someone yell out "crypto" from the audience. That is how the public perceives the whole sector.
The good news is that we all know that being a bold contrarian is the key to returns. If you can figure out a way to structure your initiative such that it literally cannot betray the public, it literally cannot betray your mission, it literally cannot betray human values, you might be able to create something that people are awfully excited about.
Just curious what other types of 'gravities' exist in organizations? In a negative gravity example, something I've seen as a social contagion is when some people start resigning it tends to spread and then the organization slowly decays (or quiets quits)
I try to work through a few of these in the book. For example, the "social contagion" theory of layoffs from Stanford Professor Jeffrey Pfeffer. Also, in my previous book and this one, I draw on a concept I call "career equity," which has to do with the fact that people's perception of what will get them ahead in an organizational hierarchy is, in very many ways, more real to them and more valuable to them than any kind of bonus incentive or financial equity you offer them.
More importantly, my goal in the book is to teach the reader how to see these deeper underlying forces that operate below the surface of most organizations. Once you see and identify them, you can learn how to wield them.
Gravity toward ads/ad-related revenue.
A company's values become even more important with AI accelerating and expanding the mission of traditional Delaware Corporations.
Do you have advice on how to use AI to help teams stay true to their values?
Having not read your book yet, in my mind there's the obvious legal support AI can provide to help navigate complex situations, but maybe there's some other groundwork in the value creation and implementation itself?
If those are your questions, I'm confident you're going to like the book a lot as it gets into precisely those topics.
I will say, in general, I think AI is an amplifier of values, and so it will make the good companies better and the bad companies worse. Or maybe more accurately, it will make the good parts of companies better and the bad parts of companies worse.
Either way, I do think that LLMs can solve many of the leadership challenges that we have to solve today with hierarchy and dashboards and bureaucracy, because LLMs are extremely good at summarizing the context of a given situation. One of the hardest leadership challenges of all is simply answering the simple question: What is my company doing right now?
That is a summarization challenge.
Thanks Eric - been a fan of your work for years! I remember Steve Blank bragging in his early courses that you evangelized his work to the masses. I applaud writing a book on the challenges of making a business that is net good for society. I've personally found that there are just so many forces pushing towards the status quo (make more $$), that it's really hard to create a company that prioritizes public good.
How much do you blame our values of our society for creating corrupt businesses? Are corrupt businesses just a mirror of our own values?
Yes, that's right. But I also think that business can be the catalyst for getting us out of this mess too, because ultimately, mission-driven companies are a source of tremendous and surprising power.
The question has been also on our mind. We restructure now towards a https://steward-ownership.com/ company structure (in CH). The hard challenge will be fundraising - so we are actually considering selling "Partizipationsscheine" which are stocks without a vote, but still a dividend. On a open market (maybe through polygon / base coins). I just wonder how to resolve the initial funding question on those companies. Any ideas?
Don't think you need anything like polygon or tokens for this. I think you just have to have the courage to ask investors to play the proper role within the governance of your company and, frankly, have the business results such that they are willing to accept those terms.
Eric, it's interesting the companies you've picked that "structurally resist gravity" and the ones you've left out. Costco, Patagonia, and Nova Nordisk are all interesting cases. But you're missing Mondragon, Equal Exchange, King Arthur Flour, and many others.
Basically, you appear to be focusing on investor owned companies and missing the entire class of worker cooperatives where the financial gravity you're talking about isn't merely resisted -- it doesn't exist. These companies have other challenges, to be sure, but if you're going to write a book called "Incorruptible" talking about businesses, not including these seems a significant oversight (at the least).
Do you address these in the book and just fail to highlight them here or is this really something you missed entirely?
First, I have not read the book. You mentioned Novo Nordisk, but given the current context and so many changes that employees/company has undergone recently and the way it is performing, do you still think that it was a good example to include here. What factors played for it to suddenly undergo so much when you have mentioned they have been structured to resist gravity and thrive for decades -- or even centuries?
I've been reading the book. The important part is in 2004 they were offered to be acquired by serono. Because of their governance they were able to say no to the acquisition. Meanwhile serono was later acquired by merck and largely shut down. Back in 2004 novo was about $2.5 a share. Now at its current price even after a huge downturn it is $43.3 So that 17x gain you can attribute advantages with how they governed themselves at that time. Is it a silver bullet or always make stock go up and to the right? No of course not. Are they making governance mistakes now? I'm not sure. But most companies probably would have sold for a ton of cash and if so everyone would have missed out on huge gains, not just in money but in technology and public good.
In your view, which are couple different companies that aren’t very big (not FAANG level yet), but you think will become quite successful? Which of them are mission driven and you’d be sad if they later become “corrupted”?
I'll just mention two which are also profiled in the book: 1. Devoted Health 2. The AI Underwriting Company (AIUC)
I don't have any questions for you. Just wanted to thank you for writing Lean Startup, it was very influential to me.
I'm about to launch a startup, do you do consulting for small companies with what I'd like to think is a big mission (likely similar to all startups lol)? In other words, is there some way to contact you and do you work with non-billion dollar startups if you find it worthwhile? Or is it more in line with 'read my books and call me when you raise your first million'?
Yes, I'd be happy to help you. Just drop me an email, and I can connect you to a variety of resources that might be stage appropriate for you.
Hey, Eric! I read Lean Startup many years ago when I was in my "let's do a startup" phase. My idea didn't make it, but I learned a lot and am glad I took the chance. Thanks for the motivation!
You said to "Ask You Anything," so here's my question: I have mostly stopped buying from Amazon. That includes books. I'd like to buy your next book. What's the best way to support you if I don't want to purchase through them? More generally, what's the best way to support authors that _only_ publish on Amazon without supporting Amazon itself?
Luckily, many of us publish in many places other than Amazon, and in fact the best way to support any author is to buy the book from your local independent bookstore. In fact, if you want to do me a big favor, you'll call your local independent bookstore, ask them if they carry the book, and if they don't, berate them for not doing so. But please do it in a polite way. In all seriousness, I actually made a list of bookstores that are selling the book that are not part of the big chains, and you can find all that on my website, incorruptible.co.
Most books, guidance and wisdom about startups appeared during a ZIRP era. How relevant all of this remains today?
Most? I don't think that can quite be right. But I do think the stuff I'm writing about has held up pretty well through many, many cycles of boom and bust. In fact, Steve Blank has a great new essay out about the coming crash and how ideas in the new book might be useful in helping us reorganize our economy afterwards, kind of the same way The Lean Startup did after the dot-com crash.
I am a few chapters into the book, so maybe this is answered later. Don’t most people who play a part in corrupting companies get away with it? You mention Jack Welch and James McNerney, but it feels like explicit examples of corruption are rare. I imagine that many of the perpetrators move on to other boards and profit off of the decline at the expense of others?
I am confident that if you read the book to the end, you will not only know the answer to this question, you will even know what we can do about it.
Intellectual dishonesty is corruption
Right, and we developers will rant about it over beer, but the dishonest ones stumble into their next success before we know it.
You said build-measure-learn principles survive AI. But when an MVP costs hours instead of months, doesn't the bottleneck move entirely to distribution and customer development?
I would say that learning is still the biggest bottleneck and the one thing that can never be outsourced.
What type of software businesses survive and thrive in the era of AGI? Which ones get wiped out? Is there any moat in the era of AGI?
You need to learn the parable of picking up dimes in front of the steam roller, which I think originally is attributed to Jean-Louis Gasset, the founder of BOS. The idea is that in a genuine platform war (which in the tech industry we haven't had for a while), new business opportunities are kind of like little dimes you see in the street in front of a giant platform steam roller. If you're agile enough, you can jump into the street, grab the dime, and jump out. In fact, you can do it repeatedly. The only problem is that if you stumble and fall once, you die.
There used to be a lot of wisdom in the entrepreneurial ecosystem about how to survive such a platform in a more durable way. For example, if you own the customer, then you can play the major platforms off against each other. Or, if you study the case, for example, of Intuit, which survived the attempt of Microsoft to absorb that product feature into their own platform monopoly at the time, there are lessons to be learned. But of course, every platform war is different, and I'm sure there will be new lessons that we will learn from this one.
Hey Eric - does it bother you all the startups in your first book you held up as examples are dead?
All of them? Really?
What's funny is when the book was published, I remember someone telling me that I should have included more examples of failed startups in the manuscript. I remember answering them, "Oh, I have. We just don't know which ones yet."
This is the difficulty of writing any kind of business book. There's just no way to use any company as an example to illustrate some principle without people misunderstanding that you're holding them up as the perfect or even great company. I use case studies to illustrate the concepts that I think are useful. I can't guarantee success any more than an athlete can tell you that if you study the way that Tony Gwynn hits the baseball, you too will be able to hit 300 in the big leagues.
That's fair but I felt you held up these companies and founders as these demigods running this well oiled operation and yet I remember looking up those companies and all quietly folded within a few years of your book coming out.
My point is you were not able to demonstrate any correlation with your suggested methods with startup success. A company could do the exact opposite of what you recommend and be successful. Or follow it to a tee and fail which is what all of them did (happy to hear about any counter examples here from the original book). So what exactly is the point if you can't even move the needle a little bit?
You should, however, ( assuming your ideas are correct ) be able to look at a company and tell if it is following your ideas or not and will therefore ( assuming your ideas are correct ) be successful or not, and therefore make billions investing.
Have you done that ?
Can a 50yr old + introvert be a successful tech founder or is it best they stick to their corporate job at a soulless megacap? haha.. thanks
Is LTSE working the way you hoped?
it's funny, people constantly criticize LTSE because it hasn't made "enough" progress (you can see one such example already on HN below). But since nobody has ever done anything remotely like this before, I am not sure how we are supposed to judge how much progress it "should" have made by now.
and since everyone widely agrees that what we are attempting is "impossible" I am pretty impressed that we've managed to make any progress at all :)
I'm of the opinion that the LTSE was built by people who didn't understand market structure which is why it continues to struggle.
I understand the idea that they were after, but it seems like they could have wrapped that up in an ETF.
Big fan of your work!
Let's say this has already happened and ossified across large, formerly-innovative companies that now have so much size and inertia behind them that it might take decades for one to "fail" in a traditional sense. What can be done to reverse the process?
I won't sugar-coat this, for many companies this will be extremely difficult. but, as I wrote about it my previous book, sometimes conditions conspire to make radical transformation possible. it usually takes a crisis or an extremely bold leader to decide to take such a big swing.
Unfortunately, a lot of leaders who do have the moral authority and power to attempt such a thing do not really know what structural changes to demand. in fact, they tend to focus on the typical management/leadership stuff: business model, org chart, strategy, vision. These things are important. But there is a deeper layer that tends to get overlooked or ignored: structure, governance, boards, the relationship with investors.
In the new book, I try to tackle both topics in a new way, so that future leaders will know what to ask for when and if they have the opportunity to try.
> sometimes conditions conspire to make radical transformation possible. it usually takes a crisis or an extremely bold leader to decide to take such a big swing.
Example of a company where this has happened?
How do you use AI on a daily basis, and are there times when you don't?
Yes, I use AI quite a lot, and I worry a lot about the effect that technology is having on me. Luckily, I have the advantage of using a tool called Solve It from the company I helped found called Answer.ai with Jeremy Howard that is explicitly designed for human-in-the-loop creation of artifacts and the development of human skills even while you use AI. Otherwise, it's likely that LLMs will cause your own skills to atrophy. You can learn more at solve.it.com
To what extent are the mechanisms you identified causing companies to go bad the same for non-profits, associations, political parties, etc.?
100% the same. Some people see this as the darkness at the heart of the for-profit sector metastasizing and affecting the other sectors. I think that's a reasonable first approximation of what's going on. But in the book, I tried to make a more intellectually complete case that part of the issue is that our current distinctions that we make between, for example, for-profit and non-profit, are intellectually incoherent. That might be part of the problem, too.
Does "financial gravity" imply that noble missions are generally less profitable? Is there a way to align that (maybe by governments structuring the market with taxes / regulations)? Is that realistic?
You're going to find this hard to believe, but actually, mission-driven companies tend to outperform their conventional counterparts. The problem is that financial gravity tends to destroy them before they can become bona fide competitors. In the book, I mostly focus on what we as leaders can do to protect our organizations from this force. Of course, it'd be nice if the people who make market-related policy were busy trying to encourage and inspire and incentivize long-term thinking instead of short-term thinking. That would make all of our lives so much easier and so much better.
Hey Eric, I loved The Lean Startup! One of my favorite books. Really looking forward to reading Incorruptible.
Thank you and thank you!
Are the lessons you have distilled applicable to other institutions in society which decline due to corruption? How is corruption different from your concept of financial gravity?
Yes. In the book, I do my best to explain how our current for-profit and non-profit labels don't really make sense, and that therefore these issues are pervasive in society (public/private sector has similar issues, as I discuss in the later chapters).
Corruption = the symptom Gravity = the force that causes it
In the book, I give the example of a bridge that collapses. If you ask an engineer "why did it collapse" you'll be annoyed if they say "gravity" even though that is technically correct. If we go examine the wreckage and notice that the metal bolts have been corroded beyond recognition, we can start to think through what went wrong and what to do about it going forward.
Only an engineer under severe pressure would snark about gravity to leadership about a bridge collapse, though. A good engineer would challenge the missing context instead. If you ask an engineer “why did it collapse” without the correct statement of context, then of course you’ll get an answer you dislike, because they’re going to (as is human norm) assume their own context rather than the none you provided. Instead, ask better questions. “Are we liable for this collapse?” is usually what I would expect a corporate leader to want answered, and so as a senior engineer I would reply to the context-free question “why did it collapse?” with a context clarification request: “Are you asking about the immediate cause, about the root cause, or about which company should be held accountable?”. There’s nothing quite like watching an exec choke out an admission of interest in legal liability rather than engineering factors after interrupting an engineer working on the collapse who knows full well not to write checks that will get them cashiered :)
All we have to do is apply this same parable to the "engineering" of organizations, and you'll be on the right track.
Thoughts on the modern trend of "AI tokens used" as a metric for performance, growth and efficiency by both startups and multi-national giants alike?
Vanity metrics strike again. Danger, Will Robinson!
Glad to see there are people recognizing it! Thank you!
What do you think of the current efforts to go from quarterly to semiannual corporate reporting in the way it is playing out in the current administration?
Well, given that it was the company I founded, LTSE, that made the original petition at the SEC to try to move in this direction, you can guess. At the time, everyone said it was a fool's errand. Now that it seems likely to succeed, we've mostly been written out of the story.
However, the details matter a great deal, and I don't know that much about what the actual proposal the SEC is going to adopt is going to be. The last draft that I saw left me pretty worried.
What's interesting to me is that, in all the hubbub, neither the journalists nor the policymakers seem that interested in the actual evidence that we have amassed in academia on this question. For example, one important study suggested that moving from semi-annual to quarterly reporting costs companies something like 5% of their market cap. It's incredibly expensive, not because generating the reports is expensive, but rather the evidence seems to be that companies under quarterly reporting start to run the company for the benefit of the report rather than for customers.
That this is bad for investors, I hope you will see as self-evident.
How much of the "financial gravity" do you attribute to VCs?
I've noticed that VCs try very hard to separate the world into "VCs + founders" and "everyone else" and that the more time a founder spends in the VC+founders bubble the more distorted their worldview can become.
Unfortunately, that is not unique to VC but happens at every layer of the capital stack for reasons I explain, I hope you'll find convincingly in the book.
The sad fact is that most VCs are not even consciously aware that they're doing this. They are simply the agents of a deeper force.
"Darkness we don't talk about" — sir, that's just every Slack thread after an all-hands. Pre-ordering anyway!!
Then I'm going to call this a marketing success story. In all seriousness, Thank you.
Costco is interesting.
I've always find it an interesting dichotomy between their public image, retail worker reputation, and corporate reputation. The former two are fantastic. I live in Seattle metro area where they are headquartered, and the last is horrible.
I've had more than one recruiter tell me it's a classic, blue collar, "we've always done it this way" environment since many of their corporate people rose through the ranks in stores, not tech. As I believe Warren Buffet put it, "every company is a tech company these days," so this creates problems. I met someone at a party there about three years ago tell me a data migration went so poorly, they'll have to use two financial systems for at least ten years because the previous system was homegrown with ancient tech.
As an ENTJ, the later would drive me crazy, and I've declined when recruiters want to talk to me about such and such manager position at Costco.
Novo Nordisk is a good company? News to me.
Well, what does "lean startup" mean in this AI age? what changes? what stays the same?
You can just watch Lenny's Podcast and you'll see how those principles are alive and well :)
can you share a TLDL for the sake of the AMA?
What have you always wanted to achieve but haven't managed to do (yet)?
Huge fan of lean startup. With being able to build MVP in hours with AI, has the "build-measure-learn" loop collapsed into something fundamebtally different? Or did the bottleneck moved elsewhere?
Learning has always been and still is the bottleneck. You can't outsource it to another country. You can't outsource it to a machine. At the end of the day, the bottleneck exists between the ears, and that process is slow and painful.
Hi Eric. In this day and age, and in the next year or two, what do you foresee as the most practical first steps for someone to work towards delivering a startup for income they can sustain themselves on?
And how has the traditional loop of validation, delivering and iterating on products, and getting your first paid customers changed since fast output is now possible with AI and technology?
Please structure this for someone with no startup experience, and such that event a child can understand. And please create a version that works for someone to begin to validate their idea right now and measure progress, and modify/iterate towards a goal of money generation for themselves or a team now and long-term. (And would you also describe then how this person can work on attracting a team for someone who has never successfully navigated choosing their own team before.) (And would you also accept my thanks, this is very kind of you)
Hi Eric, former IDEOer here. I know you spent some time at IDEO observing how we work. In my time there (2014-2024), it felt like most clients misinterpreted "MVP" to mean "the absolute lowest-effort barely-working code that we can rush out to say we shipped something." When they did manage to ship a low-quality MVP, they had no budget for maintenance or iteration. Basically, they shipped a rushed, crappy product, and some of them concluded "well, Lean, Agile and Design Thinking are all BS. We should go back to waterfall."
Sometimes clients asked IDEO to design under this shitty-MVP model (we generally refused), other times we were brought in to clean it all up.
Why do you think the concept of "MVP" was almost universally misunderstood? And, thinking about Incorruptible, how did the best companies out there internalize it?
Man, "universally misunderstood?" That's harsh.
I don't think you can put an idea out into the world without understanding that some people are going to willfully misunderstand it. We live now, especially in the age where literally ignorance is optional. When you see someone who misunderstands what an MVP is, you know that they haven't spent even five minutes reading the Wikipedia page or made any effort to try to understand it. I don't consider such people to be good faith interlocutors, and therefore I don't really think the fact that they criticize or don't understand the concept is that relevant to the rest of us who are capable of thinking for ourselves.
At the end of the day, I try to lay out in my first book the reasons why the theory that gives rise to MVP and the rest of the Lean Startup makes sense, is logical, and is consistent with a set of first principles. As a result, that theory is capable of making predictions which you can test for yourself.
Writing now for other founders who might encounter this page: If you look elsewhere in this thread, you will find lots and lots and lots of entrepreneurs who are saying how much they found these concepts helpful. You shouldn't do it because other people said so. Rather, you should take that as inspiration to think for yourself, try it, and see if the theory strikes you as valid.
Good question - I hope he gets to answer this.
Right now I actually think an MVP should be Maximum Viable Product. Partly because of AI but also because it shifts one's perspective to what Viable means.
What do you think are the most important problems that the US is currently facing?
Uhhh, read a newspaper or look at the news. It's pretty dark, man.
Book recommendations?
I've heard there's this new one that just came out. It's really good.
What parts of The Lean Startup would you update for the AI era?
none of them, really. Watch this video about the development of Claude Code and tell me if it sounds familiar: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7470133...
Of course, many of the tactics and examples in the book are now a bit dated, so if I did an "AI edition" I guess we would update it with new stories and new tips on how to use various AI-powered tools to accelerate. But I think the principles have stood up pretty well.
What do you think are the hallmarks of a great company mission?
I want to distinguish between a mission and a mission statement. I will not help you wordsmith your mission statement. I frankly don't think it matters.
But a great mission generally combines three things: 1. a long-term commitment to maximize some aspect of human flourishing (in the book I explain how this is the true definition of what it means to create a for-profit venture) 2. a set of values that include a determination to make principled decisions aligned with this goal, such that every decision the org makes is coherent 3. the strength to resist both the inner temptation and the outer pressure to defect, betray, or otherwise abandon the long-term goal
In the book I go into a lot more detail about how to do this, including how to make fiduciary commitments to the human beings you'd rather die than betray.
"1. a long-term commitment to maximize some aspect of human flourishing (in the book I explain how this is the true definition of what it means to create a for-profit venture"
How does this square with the widely taught business-school definition of a for-profit entity being something that aims to maximize shareholder value?
Boy, do I make my best effort in the book to take this idea out to the woodshed and show how this is a complete misunderstanding of what it means to be a for-profit entity. I hope you'll read the book and then come back and let me know if you think I was able to make a convincing case.
Not eries (obviously) but if you switch out shareholder for stakeholder i.e. maximise stakeholder value, you gain a wider set of responsibilities more aligned with Eric's comment. This is in itself not a new idea, it partly emerged out of the work of R. Edward Freeman. His original book on stakeholder management was published in 1984 and over the last decade has become at least a regular discussion topic at many business schools. However, the idea needs to gain far more momentum. Hopeful Eric Reis's new book also helps move the discussions forward - looking forward to reading it.
You can find my interview with R. Edward Freeman here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-stakeholder-podcas...
The only thing that can topple Patagonia is Pattie Gonia
does this apply for a company of every type? does it work for companies like apple as well?
I don't see any evidence that these tools or principles are especially limited.
Of course, we won't know until you try.
Eric, The Lean Startup had a huge influence on how I think about startups and product work, so first: thank you.
Given the current wave of AI-assisted coding (Claude Code/Codex) and the broader enshittification of SaaS/platforms, do you think B2B SaaS founders now face a new "we can just build this ourselves" problem?
How would you think about testing for that risk early?
Why are CEOs/CTOs not being fired or put on PIP for the ill-conceived internal AI push?
I don't remember the exact number, but I read somewhere that when Jack Dorsey announced a 40% layoff and claimed it was being caused by AI, his personal net worth went up something like $2 billion. When we outsource judgment to what "the market" wants, this is the result.
What does "Best Seller" mean in this context? Who says it's a best seller?
Thanks for asking. In fact, you can find all the evidence that it's a best seller on howisincorruptiblegoing.com
or you can look at this handy infographic: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/eries_incorruptible-new-york-...
"Instant New York Times Bestseller" [0]
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Incorruptible-Good-Companies-Great-St...
Why do you anthropomorphize companies? Is it to absolve individuals of responsibility?
> We've all experienced watching a company we love or admire be warped and broken beyond recognition; until it's a husk of its former self, or worse. I wanted to understand why. And I wanted to know what all of us can do to stop that from happening.
I happen to think that organizations are literally alive. They are superorganisms. To be more scientifically accurate, they are examples of the class of beings which are "emergent intelligence."
I don't think there's any way to talk about this without running into the problem of anthropomorphization. So I tried to be really careful with it in the book. You'll have to judge for yourself if you think I got it right.
And I'm especially sensitive to the question of accountability because you're right: today we mostly want to see these problems as being done by individual villains, because at least we can hold individuals accountable. How well is that going? It seems like we are breeding a class of people that are completely above accountability. I don't think that's tenable. I think in the long run, this system will collapse if it cannot hold the people responsible for atrocities accountable.
Personally, I think the best way to do this is to understand the systems that are causing these behaviors today so that we can locate responsibility in the right place.
You give advice on startups, yet the two Startups mentioned raised lots of money and have not achieved any real success.
Those who can do, those who can't teach?
I know you meant this comment as a criticism, but it actually raises a really interesting point of what we mean by "real success." I hope you will elaborate.
AMA, AN
I've noticed a lot of founders are building bigger and bigger things and still calling it MVP. Thoughts on how to focus the energy to more customer development than product development early on? Wasn't that the point? Focus on the high risk part?
I think you need the "always has been" meme.
oof.
This feels like this is exploring the reasons for what Doctorow calls "Enshitification" which is really exciting.
yes, indeed! not only exploring, but (in the long run) fixing!
I would love to know more example of good and bad companies
The book is loaded with examples, I promise.
Let me clarify one thing, though, which is that when we call a company "good" or "bad" we can't mean something like absolutely good or evil. No human enterprise can ever be truly perfect.
So, rather, we have to identify what an organization is trying to do and whether the means it has chosen are actually appropriate to that goal. Then we can judge if the goal is aligned with human flourishing (good) or not (bad), and whether the org is consistent in pursuit of that goal (good) or not (bad), and whether it has the strength to continue (good) or not (bad).
yoo, what's up gng, had breakfast?? (Can't think of any questions to ask)
HR has been receiving a lot of positive and negative attention over the last 8 years, culminating lately with some CEOs notably eliminating the HR org entirely. Do you see HR as a positive , negative or mixed force for driving “Incorruptibility “ ?
There's a whole chapter on this. I actually hate the phrase "human resources," because of course part of the problem with our modern world is that we are treating human beings as a resource to be mined.
If people had paid more attention to the pioneering management theorist, Mary Parker Follett, who wrote more than a century ago, we wouldn't be in this mess. But of course, her work was almost entirely erased and forgotten, only rediscovered in the 1990s.
Don't worry, I have a whole chapter about this in the new book.
thanks for the lead I'll read more.
Why did you decide to write this book?
I've just seen this problem up close and personal for a lot of years in a row. I'm sick and tired of helping people become rich and miserable, creating great companies only for them to be destroyed out of the gates. What is the point of all this carnage? Who is it for?
Books like this are for tech bros what horoscopes are for sad old ladies.
They are full of platitudes that sound relevant to people's problems and desires, that pretend to be based on science but have no actual basis in facts, provably do not work, and yet are still popular amongst the people they let down again and again.
Anyone who could write a book with advice that worked the way this purports to would be too rich to need Kickstarter to fund his books, for a start.
My friend, I know you think this is a criticism. It's pretty obvious that you haven't read the book. I'd encourage you to do so, or at least ask yourself, "Why are you commenting on a book you haven't read?" The answer must be that you're upset about a different book or about a whole class of books that have done you wrong. That's fair. I know what you're talking about. But for what it's worth, I tried really hard to make this book different. If you check the end notes, you'll see that I drew on quite a lot of research to try and make a series of evidence-based claims.
And if you really want to live in a world where people should be listened to on the basis of how rich they are, well, you don't really need to change anything, now do you?
My friend, I know you think you're defending your position well, but you've done the opposite. Scrolling to the bottom of the comments and seeing this response from you is like speedrunning your books' one-star reviews and coming to the definitive conclusion that it's not for me. Thanks for saving my time.
How are corruption and enshittification related?
I didn't want to be seen as trying to co-opt Cory's thesis or (very memorable) phrase. His critique is more focused on the tech industry and its particular illness at this time.
I wanted a word that was much broader, capturing how this tech behavior is one symptom of a larger illness that has been afflicting our economy for some time. So I settled on the old-fashioned term "corruption"
Do you not think using a word in this way undermines its actual meaning?
Meanings are contested. The way I use the word is much closer to the way our grandparents used the word than our modern usage. How did it change? Could it change back? I think so.
[edit] Removed as my link was to a different Eric Ries.
Wrong Eric Ries? The writer of that blog claims to be a 65 yo Baby Boomer (would be 67 today), the one here is much younger than that iirc.
yes, this is the author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Ries
Thanks for catching that, should have done a better job vetting that. The rest of my post is still true.
Yeah, the bio in About specifically mentions that they are not the famous one
Wow I didn’t know that.
That is deeply disappointing.