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.

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?

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.

thank you! I appreciate you sharing. As an author, you never get tired of hearing stories likethis.

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.

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.

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?

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"

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.

genuinely curious, why is the other question https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48477817 flagged to death here? what am i not getting, seemed like a perfectly reasonable thing to ask whether you agree with premise or not

Neither of those have been corrupted . They both seem to be carrying out their long term strategy extremely well.

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.

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.

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 :)

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).

You can just watch Lenny's Podcast and you'll see how those principles are alive and well :)

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.

Intellectual dishonesty is corruption

Wow I didn’t know that.

That is deeply disappointing.