A founder wields considerable authority, I am not sure if it is too absurd to compare it to the divine right of kings, where decisions are seen as absolute (but if 90% of startups fail, clearly not infallible). To be fair though there are instances where perpetual micromanagement (Founder mode) is preferable especially when handing tasks to incompetent delegates, but when that is indeed the case, you have uncovered a flaw in your hiring rather than an innovative way to run a business.
There are also times where the combination of speed, agility and authority yield results that would take a long time to replicate with prolonged deliberation, and of course timing can be the difference between success and failure in market driven economies. However, just because you identify a successful or benevolent autocrat does not mean you should abandon more deliberative and egalitarian approaches.
Ok, I have probably stretched this analogy far enough ;)
