Oh my dear Rands, you're so wrong. Let me explain.

I too have worked at successful startups and failed startups and one failed establish business and one successful established US Army.

> Most startups fail.

This is wrong. Most startups "fail to launch" and thus make their founders bajillions of dallars. Fewer still make their early employees bajillions of dollars. No, most startups shuffle on (as "zombies" do), making their founders and employees happy and productive. Payouts? No. Paychecks? Yes. This is a critical distinction. Most startups work fine.

> An organization chart doesn’t tell you who can speak with whom; it tells you who is accountable for what. It’s a map. Not a power structure.

So, it tells you who to blame? Responsibility without authority? Founders under this structure are always successful for the simple reason that it's always someone else's fault. This I've seen happen with my own eyes.

No, by definition, an org chart is exactly a power structure. If you don't want a power structure, then echew the org chart. You won't be successful that way, as my experience shows, but it's an option.

> hire leaders, not managers.

This, at its core, is in fact right and proper. Unfortunatly it's now a platitude that HR uses. And I've seen it be the seed of rot. Leaders expect to lead. Leaders expect to make descisions. Leaders take care of their troops. None of that works under Founder Mode, for the reasons you've given ("The whole team is involved in the details", "Everyone does the work", "It’s a map. Not a power structure").

What your piece misses is whether you call them "managers" or "leaders" or "eccentric humans" or "By the book, MBA types", what you need is _good people_. And then you need to use them in their roles -- whatever those roles may be. And trust.