I suspect this is a key insight. There is a colloquialism for a company of people all trying to be 'the boss' called "Too many Chiefs, not enough Indians" (in reference to the tribal organization of Native American tribes, where in fact there was exactly one Chief who was the final arbiter) but another spin on this is "Too many Medicine men, not enough Indians."
The "fantasy" life of a startup founder is that they see things others don't (vision) and lead people who make those visions real (workers). Except you can't really lead someone with a vision if you don't know yourself how to make that vision real.
The challenges of startups are that you have to be able to "do it all" in order to know what "doing it" actually entails, then you can bring people in who can do a part of it (that you were previously doing) and know if they are doing it well or not. Folks who are visionary in their thinking but can't break that down into actionable steps toward that vision, and then break those steps into problem assignments, aren't really going to be an asset for your startup until you already have a product and a revenue stream.
Even then, there is nothing more irritating to folks than a clueless visionary. Someone who says something like "The underlying problem is energy dependence, so our goal should be to provide an unlimited energy source to break that dependence, let's get some smart people working on that!" Accurate vision, but ultimately clueless, they just slow people down who have to explain the 2nd law of thermodynamics to them (if they are patient enough).
""(in reference to the tribal organization of Native American tribes, where in fact there was exactly one Chief who was the final arbiter)""
AFAIK absolutely false. It is also a gross generalization about a diverse group of people with differing sociopolitical structures.
I would suggest reading "Empire of the Summer Moon" for an example of a famous and incredibly egalitarian American construct, or just read about Iroquois political structures via Googling, for two examples.
Perhaps a better illustration would be "too many captains and not enough sailors." I understand ships are much more strongly and consistently hierarchical. We already use nautical analogies for businesses, anyway.
We have the exact same saying in Brazil and our native tribes are very different from north american ones. I am pretty sure this is just an analogy, using the terms everybody knows ("chief" and "indians") to explain whatever environment where are too many people giving orders and too few following them (aka working).
Not related in any way to actual organizations of any actual tribes.
Thanks for pointing that out for those curious about organizations and history. The more I learn about history, the more I am reminded of the phrase: "It's complicated."
Whiddershins' comment has nothing to do with political correctness, but rather with actual historical correctness. The comment is polite, sincere, and provides a further source of information for those who seek it.
[1] The phrase is the analog of an idiom. It is shorthand for "hierarchy" and used as such. The parent is explaining its use.
[2] There are many tribal organizations. This cuts both ways. Provided there is a single one that was historically rank-hierachical, the data is not even a counterfactual.
[3] Provided [2] is ok, so is [1]. We know [2] is ok. Hence, the comment is logically ~gratuitous.
In my country we use a phrase, roughly translated as: "Many midwives, tepid child". Sorry, we didn't have Indians to kill and them make a mockery out of them ;)
"Folks who are visionary in their thinking but can't break that down into actionable steps toward that vision, and then break those steps into problem assignments, aren't really going to be an asset for your startup until you already have a product and a revenue stream."
The actionable steps are actually part of the vision, usually the more important part. For example, suppose there might exist some fantastical amazing place full of unicorns and rainbows. What's more important: having detailed visions of what this paradise will look like once you get there? Or actually knowing how to get there?
The "fantasy" life of a startup founder is that they see things others don't (vision) and lead people who make those visions real (workers). Except you can't really lead someone with a vision if you don't know yourself how to make that vision real.
The challenges of startups are that you have to be able to "do it all" in order to know what "doing it" actually entails, then you can bring people in who can do a part of it (that you were previously doing) and know if they are doing it well or not. Folks who are visionary in their thinking but can't break that down into actionable steps toward that vision, and then break those steps into problem assignments, aren't really going to be an asset for your startup until you already have a product and a revenue stream.
Even then, there is nothing more irritating to folks than a clueless visionary. Someone who says something like "The underlying problem is energy dependence, so our goal should be to provide an unlimited energy source to break that dependence, let's get some smart people working on that!" Accurate vision, but ultimately clueless, they just slow people down who have to explain the 2nd law of thermodynamics to them (if they are patient enough).