The binary state is too simplistic. But it is largely the hook to make the post attractive and successful.
Let's say I'm a founder. I am one with the vision of what we're trying to build. Can a professional manager do that better than I can? Can he/she make the calls about what's in or out of scope, or what the architecture needs to be, better than I can? No and no.
So it's not that professional management is harmful, just that it's worse than the founder can do.
And in a startup, that's likely true. But founders don't scale, and there comes a point in the growth of a company where it quits being true.
Founders often can make decisions more quickly than managers. They can also revisit decisions more quickly than managers. If the company is small, the founders can be a win - especially with higher-quality decisions.
This is just another way of saying that the decisions of founders are not strictly better. Even if it's stipulated that founders always make better decisions given the same time constraints, their advantage will dwindle quickly as they become more time constrained.
> They can also revisit decisions more quickly than managers.
Why? This seems very unclear to me... I would intuitively say the exact opposite. Founders seem far more likely to make a decision, move on, and never think about that particular thing again.
To use a concrete example. Say a founder makes a key hire, essentially unilaterally, but to a position that does not report directly in to them. Who is more likely to notice and revisit that decision if the person isn't working out, the founder who hired them or the manager (and team) who is working with them day to day? It's the manager, clearly. The founder has done their part, they've brought in a key person, they're off focused on something totally different, as they should be, they have no idea how this person is working out.
Even mediocre management is pretty good, but good management is great.