It doesn't help that VCs actively promote and foster founders who behave in ways that would get themselves in trouble. I guess in the case of Zenefits misleading investors is a rule that doesn't "matter".
4. Naughtiness
Though the most successful founders are usually good people, they tend to have a piratical gleam in their eye. They're not Goody Two-Shoes type good. Morally, they care about getting the big questions right, but not about observing proprieties. That's why I'd use the word naughty rather than evil. They delight in breaking rules, but not rules that matter. This quality may be redundant though; it may be implied by imagination.
Sam Altman of Loopt is one of the most successful alumni, so we asked him what question we could put on the Y Combinator application that would help us discover more people like him. He said to ask about a time when they'd hacked something to their advantage—hacked in the sense of beating the system, not breaking into computers. It has become one of the questions we pay most attention to when judging applications.
Someone got downvoted below for saying multiple things. One being not to always follow unwritten rules. Yet from what can be gathered about Loopt, it seems like it wasn't acquired for legit purposes. Loopt was failing, had common investors with the acquiring company, was acquired, and promptly shut down.
I'd think most people would say something that seems like cronyism is an unwritten rule of what not to do. Yet that's a [big] part of Sam's legacy, no? Of course I'm assuming things about the Loopt acquisition, but it never did look right.
That is a good and necessary thing in order to create a company. If you’re used to obeying rules (especially unwritten ones) you’ll never get off the ground in the first place.
> If you’re used to obeying rules (especially unwritten ones) you’ll never get off the ground in the first place.
I know plenty of people who "get off the ground" by playing by the rules. I'd love for you to re-read your comment again and tell me that it doesn't sound dogmatic.
I've made a lot of money off their stock so it immediately comes to mind - Atlassian. The only things I can think of are how they maneuvered around Australia's tax stuff, but they didn't go full on into tax havens like other companies have been accused of doing. They just went towards the U.K. And people have issues specifically with their products like Jira, but none of that relates to rules or ethics.
What rules did companies like Atlassian not follow?
Hah I wrote a much longer comment that essentially winded up being just this. Following all the rules is way too restrictive. Everyone speeds or breaks some traffic law at some point. Def need some criteria.
4. Naughtiness
Though the most successful founders are usually good people, they tend to have a piratical gleam in their eye. They're not Goody Two-Shoes type good. Morally, they care about getting the big questions right, but not about observing proprieties. That's why I'd use the word naughty rather than evil. They delight in breaking rules, but not rules that matter. This quality may be redundant though; it may be implied by imagination.
Sam Altman of Loopt is one of the most successful alumni, so we asked him what question we could put on the Y Combinator application that would help us discover more people like him. He said to ask about a time when they'd hacked something to their advantage—hacked in the sense of beating the system, not breaking into computers. It has become one of the questions we pay most attention to when judging applications.
http://www.paulgraham.com/founders.html