The going dark pattern has a structural consequence too. Decisions don't stop when the founder retreats, they just get made without the context only the founder holds. The team fills the vacuum with their best guess. Key calls get deferred or made at the wrong level. By the time the founder re-emerges, the organisation has reorganised itself around the absence. That's often harder to unwind than the original problem.
The "investors already know" section is the one most founders need to hear and won't. Silence is its own update and it always communicates the worst possible version of whatever's actually happening. A founder who sends a transparent bad-news update gets remembered as someone with integrity. A founder who goes dark gets remembered as someone who hid. The irony is that the update you're most afraid to send is usually the one that preserves the relationship for the next company.
thanks for this! the investor angle is important but the part that gets missed is the team. When a founder goes quiet, the team reads every signal. Key people start interviewing. Decisions slow to a crawl because nobody knows what's sanctioned anymore.
I hear you. A founder that's hiding has a very significant impact on the team. I've lived that experience and seen it play out before. It's tough for founders to admit things are going sideways, even though everyone - including employees - can see it.
The opportunity cost point may be one founders skim past, but it's very salient. There's a version of "persistence" that's really just avoidance with better branding! The skill of telling the difference is harder than it sounds. That distinction cost me more time than I'd like to admit as an operator. Thanks Ben!
The going dark pattern has a structural consequence too. Decisions don't stop when the founder retreats, they just get made without the context only the founder holds. The team fills the vacuum with their best guess. Key calls get deferred or made at the wrong level. By the time the founder re-emerges, the organisation has reorganised itself around the absence. That's often harder to unwind than the original problem.
very good piece! the part about investors backing the same person 2-3 times is so true
The "investors already know" section is the one most founders need to hear and won't. Silence is its own update and it always communicates the worst possible version of whatever's actually happening. A founder who sends a transparent bad-news update gets remembered as someone with integrity. A founder who goes dark gets remembered as someone who hid. The irony is that the update you're most afraid to send is usually the one that preserves the relationship for the next company.
thanks for this! the investor angle is important but the part that gets missed is the team. When a founder goes quiet, the team reads every signal. Key people start interviewing. Decisions slow to a crawl because nobody knows what's sanctioned anymore.
I hear you. A founder that's hiding has a very significant impact on the team. I've lived that experience and seen it play out before. It's tough for founders to admit things are going sideways, even though everyone - including employees - can see it.
The opportunity cost point may be one founders skim past, but it's very salient. There's a version of "persistence" that's really just avoidance with better branding! The skill of telling the difference is harder than it sounds. That distinction cost me more time than I'd like to admit as an operator. Thanks Ben!
Insightful article, well worth a read for any current or budding business founders
Thanks William, I appreciate that.