The Founder Paradox: Why VCs Bet on Leaders Who Drive Them Crazy
 
When Roelof Botha joined Sequoia Capital in 2003, the firm’s founder and investing legend, Don Valentine, shared something that would fundamentally reshape how he thought about backing startup founders.
 
Valentine took Botha aside and explained his two-by-two matrix for assessing leaders. One axis depicted capability: ‘not exceptional’ to ‘exceptional’. The other axis depicted personality: ‘easy to get along with’ to ‘not easy to get along with’. Valentine then challenged Botha to figure out in which quadrant Sequoia normally makes money.
 
Most people instinctively assume the answer must be ‘exceptional and easy to get along with’. Surely the best founders are both brilliant and pleasant?
 
They're wrong.
 
The winning quadrant, as Botha would discover, was ‘exceptional’ but ‘not easy to get along with’. And understanding why this counter-intuitive insight drives venture returns might be one of the most important lessons for any founder seeking investment.
 
 
The Valentine Revelation
 
Don Valentine's matrix became legendary at Sequoia because it challenged conventional wisdom about what makes a great founder. But what did Valentine mean by ‘not easy to get along with’?
 
This isn't about celebrating difficult personalities or excusing bad behaviour. It's about recognising a fundamental truth: founders who build category-defining companies are often impossible to satisfy, relentlessly demanding, and utterly uncompromising in their pursuit of excellence.
 
They're not difficult for the sake of being difficult - they're difficult because they're on a mission that matters more to them than being liked.
 
‘Not easy to get along with’ is about a state of mind rather than a capability or a skillset. In terms of capability, Valentine himself looked for "versatile, clever" people who "know what they don't know" - founders with the humility to recognise their gaps but the intensity to close them faster than anyone thinks possible.
 
But it's that other 'personality' axis - the "not easy to get along with" dimension - that deserves deeper examination. Because this is where most people, including many investors, make the wrong call.
 
 
Decoding "Difficult": Mission vs Malice

When we hear "not easy to get along with," our minds might leap to stories of tyrannical bosses and toxic workplaces. But that's not what Valentine meant, and it's not what successful VCs look for.
 
The founders who land in this quadrant share specific traits. They challenge every assumption, even (especially!) from their board members. They push for timelines that make experienced operators uncomfortable. They refuse to ship products that are merely good when great is possible. They'd rather have difficult conversations than comfortable compromises. As a result, they create distinctive, often unique, cultures.
 
Jensen Huang, co-founder of Nvidia, exemplifies this perfectly. He built a $4 trillion market cap company with this leadership philosophy: ‘No task is beneath me’. He maintains roughly 50 direct reports - five times the typical CEO - and states bluntly: "If you want to do extraordinary things, it shouldn't be easy." But here's his core ethos: Huang believes in radical transparency, communicating to all stakeholders simultaneously because "there are very few secrets at Nvidia." The flat org chart enables this. He's not secretive or political - he's intensely open about intensely high standards.
 
 
The High-Standards Paradox
 
Here's where things get interesting. Founders who are "easy to get along with" can absolutely have intellectual rigour and urgency. They can be smart, driven, and successful by most normal standards. But there's a subtle yet crucial difference in how they apply these qualities.

"Easy" founders might accept a B+ solution to maintain team harmony. They'll slow down to ensure everyone's comfortable with the pace. When someone does good work, they say, "great job!" and move on. They prioritise psychological safety for everyone, which sounds admirable but can institutionalise mediocrity.
 
"Not easy" founders operate differently. When presented with good work, they ask: "How do we make this exceptional?" They create psychological safety for high performers to take massive risks and fail spectacularly, but they have zero tolerance for mediocrity. They'll have the uncomfortable conversation today rather than the crisis meeting next quarter.
 
Huang demonstrates this with his philosophy that "no task is beneath me.” He's not beneath them hierarchically - he's alongside them in the trenches, but demanding they match his commitment to excellence. It's servant leadership with stratospheric standards (and results).
 
This creates what some call ‘productive pressure’ - the kind that transforms high-potential individuals into exceptional operators. It's not fear-based management; it's excellence-based leadership. The difference matters enormously.
 
 
Why This Works: The High-Performer's Paradise
 
Critics point out that demanding leadership creates "a revolving door of talent". Nvidia’s CEO was labelled a 'demanding' boss by staff. But experts say you have to be cutthroat. They're right, but they're missing the point. That revolving door is a feature, not a bug. These types of founders create what amounts to a high-performer's paradise.
 
For A-players who've spent their careers frustrated by the pace and standards of normal companies, working for these "difficult" founders becomes transformative. Finally, they're in an environment that matches their ambition. Finally, they're surrounded by others who share their commitment to excellence. Finally, they can work at the pace and intensity they've always craved.
 
The average performers leave - and that's exactly the point. These companies are building the extraordinary, and that requires extraordinary people giving extraordinary effort. While critics argue this approach hurts morale, the reality is it creates incredibly high morale among those who remain.
 
This explains why the same companies that are notorious for being demanding - from Apple to Amazon to Nvidia - also have alumni who credit those experiences as the most important of their careers. They learned what exceptional actually looks like. They discovered what they were truly capable of achieving.
 
 
The Alumni Advantage: Why Pedigree Matters
 
There's a reason VCs get excited when they see founders with experience at companies known for their demanding cultures. These alumni have witnessed firsthand how "not easy to get along with" leaders deliver exceptional results. They've seen the direct correlation between uncomfortably high standards and category-defining outcomes.
 
More importantly, this experience gives them permission to be equally demanding themselves. They know what great looks like because they've lived it. They understand that the discomfort they create isn't cruel - it's necessary. They've experienced the transformation that happens when you push people beyond what they thought possible.
 
Consider the PayPal mafia - alumni who went on to found or lead companies like LinkedIn, YouTube, Yelp, and Palantir. They'd worked under Peter Thiel and experienced a culture of intense intellectual combat where every assumption was challenged, and mediocrity was unacceptable. When they became founders themselves, they didn't soften their approach - they replicated and refined it.
 
The same pattern emerges from other demanding cultures. Ex-Amazon executives build companies with similarly high bars for operational excellence. Former Apple employees maintain obsessive attention to product details. Nvidia alumni push for technical breakthroughs others consider impossible.

Founders without this pedigree face a different challenge. They may intellectually understand the need for high standards, but they haven't viscerally experienced how it works. They tread more carefully, worry more about being liked, and often mistake consensus for leadership. They haven't earned the confidence that comes from seeing this approach succeed, so they hedge their bets and soften their edges.
 
This creates a compounding advantage for those with the right experience. They attract other A-players who recognise and crave that intensity. They move faster because they waste less time on consensus-building. They make harder decisions because they've seen the cost of compromise. VCs know this, which is why "ex-[demanding company]" on a founder's CV grabs attention.
 
 
The Leadership Distinction
 
Being "not easy to get along with" doesn't mean lacking collaboration. These founders are intensely collaborative, but on their terms - demanding rapid iteration, radical transparency, and collective commitment to the mission.
 
In setting out the mission, successful founders are comfortable with polarising any audience. They have strong points of view and express them with conviction. But this polarisation isn't born from problem obsession but from solution addiction. The moment they suspect they're working on the wrong problem, they'll pivot without hesitation. But they will NOT give up on finding a solution.
 
Breakthrough founders don't lead orderly marches toward incremental progress. They chaotically move people to a different future - one that doesn't yet exist, one that requires imagination to see. This chaos isn't dysfunction; it's the necessary disruption of moving from today's reality to tomorrow's possibility. You can't build the future on today's foundations without some demolition.
 
This combination of traits makes them "not easy to get along with." In the startup, they'll argue passionately for their vision one week, discover new data the next, and completely redirect the company the week after, without apology.
 
For employees expecting consistency and predictability, this is maddening. For investors wanting steady progress along a predetermined path, it's nerve-wracking. But this is exactly how breakthrough companies get built - through founders who care more about finding the right solution than being right about their first guess.
 
They're leaders because they're leading towards solution excellence, not consensus. The only unforgivable sin is settling for good enough. This is why they polarise. This is why they're difficult. And this is why they win.
 
 
The Bottom Line for Founders

Here's the uncomfortable truth: if you find yourself prioritising harmony over excellence, comfort over breakthrough performance, being liked over being respected - you might be in the wrong quadrant of the Valentine matrix.
 
The most successful founders understand they're not building a company - they're building a category. That requires a different kind of leadership. One that polarises audiences with strong convictions. One that pivots without apology when the problem changes but never gives up on finding the solution. One that creates environments where A-players thrive, and B-players leave.
 
This isn't permission to be cruel. It's recognition that "not easy to get along with" means refusing to let anything - including other people's comfort - get between you and excellence. It means your solution addiction is stronger than your need for approval. It means understanding that the revolving door of talent isn't a bug - it's the feature that ensures only the exceptional remain.
 
The Valentine matrix isn't just how investors evaluate you. It's a mirror. If you're not making some people uncomfortable with your standards, if you're not losing employees who can't match your pace, if you're not having arguments about why good isn't good enough - you're probably not building something extraordinary.
 
Which quadrant are you in?
 

Let's talk.