Why in the fuck would a founder even consider being mean to one of the most powerful people in the industry? It just seemed to lack the self awareness that founders probably treat him differently than the average person they interact with.
Here is his response to that: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/538816535930748928/
Clearly PG does have that self-awareness.
The problem with what you're saying is that it almost falls into the class of unfalsifiable assertions. Meaning there's virtually no way to disprove what you're saying (not in the sense that it is proved true, but in the sense that it is nearly impossible to prove either way). Even if PG were to assert vigorously that he has spotted many cases of people being nice to his face but being mean elsewhere, you could just continue to assert "Well he just hasn't spotted it well enough."
A major element of whether one is selected for invitation into closed, snooty clubs (or promoted into management) is whether there's a suspicion that you'll invite too many (presumably not deserving) friends. People who are "sticky" don't get promoted. People who might tip off their reports about an impending layoff aren't made managers.
You have to be cold, for organizational ascent, but not a dick.
In environments of heterogeneity, warmth is actually an advantage because people who are personable and giving tend to have a wider array of connections, and that means more information, better ideas, and an easier time staying up to date. The old Silicon Valley actually was that way, but for the past 20 years, it's been functioning as one (however postmodern) corporate organization.
I've come to the conclusion that the only way to save Silicon Valley is to pass a law that makes investors liable for certain kinds of founder misconduct, including sexual harassment. For example, a frat boy like Spiegel would actually probably not get promoted in a larger corporation, if his true colors came out, because he's an HR liability. But investors can fund people like him and wash their hands of the cultural issues created by funding frat boys. That's a real problem, and it ought to be fixed. Since founders are middle managers in the VC-funded meta-company that now exists in the Valley, it's only reasonable to acknowledge them as such, and pass liabilities up the chain into the executive ranks (investors).
Interesting insight about "stickiness"; reminds me of high school cliques, college fraternities/sororities/clubs, etc. Looking forward to your post.
I'm not sure I completely agree with this, but it's definitely a useful perspective to keep in mind. A lot of things look very different if you switch over to that way of thinking once in a while.
Both pieces of it, the founders are middle managers, and the Valley as meta-company.