The behavior you've described seems deeply dysfunctional but for reasons that are entirely separate from how the term "founder mode" has gained a life of its own. "Founder mode" is being weaponized to critique people for entering a market much more competitive and dry of opportunity than it was thirty years ago Without acknowledging any change in the market the article at hand seems to be just a person belching complaints without anything to say.
Comparisons with the big internet successes of 25-30 years ago are pretty wild anyway, on the basis that Google is pretty much the poster child for tech founders letting a professional manager install a hierarchy to do the running-big-company stuff, and Pierre Omidyar not only left day to day management as soon as eBay floated but also made a point of moving out the Valley and portraying himself as a philanthropist rather than a business leader.
The original essay felt more like scrabbling around for a reason why founders felt their companies were less effective with more levels of hierarchy whilst somehow missing the essential truth that managing a team of 1000 is harder than managing a team of 15 no matter how you do it. I'm just here for all the wild takes on founder greatness and founder obligation that came with it!
