Startup culture heavily relies on certain narratives and messaging. The stories of near-death fundraises, office-floor sleeping bags, and last-ditch pivots are retold with increasing drama on every podcast and at every fireside chat. The implication that most founding stories need to be interesting - containing Shakespearean elements of struggle, drama or betrayal - is especially harmful for young entrepreneurs. [1]
The ‘visionary’ archetype has subsequently emerged as a natural idol created by the VC/startup ecosystem. This mythologised figure aligns almost perfectly with the overarching narrative: contrarian, eccentric, egotistical and slightly controversial. [2] The archetype has since become aspirational: for VCs to spot, and for first-time founders to become.
It’s certainly important to dream big. Many of our greatest innovations exist not because certain people saw what others couldn’t, but ultimately pursued bold and daring ideas with high conviction. You would feel on top of the world too if a big bet paid off, made you millions, and changes how entire industries operate. Anyone would feel on top of the world especially if the big bet paid off despite others doubting you. However, pioneers were previously deemed visionaries only after achieving success. As a result, there were fewer visionaries, and thankfully fewer thought leaders on podcasts without a leg to stand on.
Today, we’re experiencing technological innovations of an unprecedented nature. Most notably, the cost of building products - financially and otherwise - has decreased massively, and we’re seeing a rise in competition across multiple sectors. In the same way there are thousands of products being launched each month, there are hundreds of thousands of founders emerging out there. It’s easier than ever to start a company, but building products isn’t enough anymore to stand out. So, now we have more and more self-proclaimed visionaries than ever, either over-dramatising aspects of startup culture and/or simply regurgitating dictums by industry veterans – or attempting to debunk them for the sake of engagement, i.e. ‘ragebaiting’. Perhaps the real artificial intelligence we should be worried about already exists on tech Twitter. [3]
There’s nothing inherently wrong with thought leadership, but when it primarily serves to validate the pursuit of ego over impact, we’re creating a dangerous template for the next generation. This isn’t new either - for the longest while, this idealised archetype has involved grandiose thinking, inflated sense of special destiny, and godlike power excused as necessary quirks of visionary leadership. Oftentimes, these are revealed to be nothing more than a facade, masking fragile egos that have somehow amassed outsized influence.
However, unlike other industries where unchecked hubris might only affect a company, technology’s unprecedented reach means ego-driven founders can affect billions of lives across healthcare, education, journalism, and beyond. The same personality traits that might be harmless (or even helpful) in building a photo-sharing app become concerning when applied to reshaping democracy or developing artificial intelligence.
While previous generations of industrialists could influence how we work or travel, today’s tech leaders can reshape how we think, connect, and understand reality itself. Perhaps it’s time to acknowledge that the stakes are too high for ego to lead the way.
[1] TL;DR: young founders need good role models.
[2] In other words, an asshole.
[3] I promise I’m not normally this snide.