just have a handful of super-productive guys with a loose mandate and good motivation
I once joined a startup that fit this description. The team included the best programmers I knew in the city, and the CEO was (is) the best person at picking talent I've ever known. I believed, and still do believe, that people are the most important thing, so I wasn't too worried about whether the initial idea would work out. A good team would simply adapt, and this was going to be the best team I'd ever been on.
It didn't work out that way at all because the leader turned out to be... well, if I described how he was, you might not believe me. So let's just say I learned a lesson: the ability to find good people and the ability to lead them are two completely different things, and you can have one without the other. This team never had a chance to get off the ground.
This doesn't contradict what you're saying, but for me it's an important thing to add to the "put great people first" approach.
He turned out to be abusive and incapable of collaboration. He would say things like, "From now on, nobody except me makes any creative decision. If you have a creative idea you need to clear it with me first." I know it's hard to believe, but that wasn't a joke.
I'm trying to remember some representative anecdotes for you... for example, our receptionist made the mistake of sending out an investor email without bcc'ing, so the email addresses were all visible. He made her handwrite a note that said, "I apologize for violating your privacy. [The CEO] has instructed me on how to properly send email. I will not do it again" - and write it out 90 times - and mail them to each investor. (You may ask why there were 90 investors... another story.) She told me tearfully that she got RSI from writing out the notes.
Anyway, imagine a whole bunch of examples like that and you'll get the picture.
It was fascinating to observe how the different team members reacted to this person. Most retreated into a shell and didn't speak up as he abused others. There were a few scapegoats who accepted prolonged terrible treatment. There were also a few who acted courageously. For example, when the CEO yelled at one designer for leaving work on a Sunday and told him he would have to apologize to everyone for "letting down the team", the designer said, "In that case, I won't be back" and left. But these latter were a small minority.
It will surely help others avoid it.
Maybe. Sometimes one has to experience things for oneself. The key thing I would say about all this is: if someone is abusive, it doesn't matter whether he's abusing you. What matters is what it tells you about his character. Don't make excuses for people like that. Just avoid them. (Counterargument - Steve Jobs?)
Come to think of it, he was both. He was restrictive (a control freak) and also changed strategic direction at least once a week. I once tried to convince him to let the team go two days at a time without having their project changed, and he refused!
I once joined a startup that fit this description. The team included the best programmers I knew in the city, and the CEO was (is) the best person at picking talent I've ever known. I believed, and still do believe, that people are the most important thing, so I wasn't too worried about whether the initial idea would work out. A good team would simply adapt, and this was going to be the best team I'd ever been on.
It didn't work out that way at all because the leader turned out to be... well, if I described how he was, you might not believe me. So let's just say I learned a lesson: the ability to find good people and the ability to lead them are two completely different things, and you can have one without the other. This team never had a chance to get off the ground.
This doesn't contradict what you're saying, but for me it's an important thing to add to the "put great people first" approach.