I'm Eric Ries, author of "The Lean Startup" and new book "Incorruptible" – AMA
Why once-idealistic companies drift into enshittification and short-termism is framed here as a structural problem—“financial gravity”—rather than just bad leaders or morals. Commenters probe how governance, ownership models, and incentives can protect a mission over decades, citing examples like Costco, Patagonia, cooperatives, foundations, and the Long-Term Stock Exchange, while challenging whether such “incorruptible” designs can really withstand capitalism’s pressures. The thread also revisits Lean Startup ideas in the age of AI, debates the meaning and misuse of MVPs, and explores how AI tools might either erode or strengthen organizational values.
Reception of the books and ideas
- Many commenters say The Lean Startup shaped how they think about startups, product, and careers; several still gift it to founders.
- A smaller but vocal group is skeptical, arguing the original case-study companies failed and that the ideas feel like generic “business-book platitudes.”
- The new book Incorruptible is seen by supporters as a timely diagnosis of “why good companies go bad”; skeptics question whether it can overcome selection bias or entrenched incentives.
Financial gravity, corruption, and governance
- The new thesis: most “corruption” is structural (“financial gravity”), not individual villainy.
- Core mechanism: today’s governance “best practices” and shareholder-primacy norms push companies toward short-term profit, undermining missions and founders.
- The book claims mission-driven firms often outperform, but are structurally vulnerable to being “captured” or redirected.
- Proposed remedy: redesign governance (e.g., foundations owning operating companies, “governance fortresses,” worker or stakeholder representation, long-term stock structures).
Examples and counter‑examples
- Positively discussed or analyzed: Costco, Patagonia, Novo Nordisk, Mondragon, credit unions, co‑ops, some tech firms (e.g., AI labs, dev tools, infra companies).
- Negatively: cases like Wells Fargo, DuPont, emissions scandals, some big tech enshittification, and high-profile AI organizations drifting from original missions.
- Some argue leadership quality alone explains outcomes; others insist structure is what protects or dooms good leaders over time.
Capitalism, incentives, and alternative models
- One camp sees “financial gravity” as just capitalism’s basic logic; any long-lived for‑profit will be pulled toward exploitation.
- Another camp agrees incentives are warped but points to cross‑country variation, co‑ops, foundations, and steward‑ownership as evidence that different designs can resist.
- Debate over whether “good” companies must underperform the market; participants cite examples on both sides and dispute how to measure “awful” behavior.
AI, Lean Startup, and organizational practice
- Many ask how Lean Startup changes in the AI era when MVPs can be built in hours.
- Response: the core loop (“build–measure–learn”) still holds; AI speeds “build” but not “learn,” which remains the bottleneck in human understanding.
- The author endorses using AI as a skill amplifier (research, editing, summarization), not as a “vibe-writing” replacement.
- Concern that AI metrics like “tokens used” and low-quality MVPs become new vanity metrics and enshittification vectors.
Other recurring themes
- Strong interest in tools and firms that support mission-protective formation (PBCs, special law firms, LTSE).
- Recognition that similar “gravity” affects nonprofits, governments, HR, media, and open source, not just corporations.
- Several comments frame the real test as succession: most organizations fail when founders leave; a few structures seem to extend mission resilience, but nothing is truly “immortal.”