Article
Why Do So Many Founders Cross Ethical Lines? A Guide for Investors
May 9, 2025
We’ve all seen the headlines: visionary founders, celebrated one day, indicted for fraud the next. Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos, Sam Bankman-Fried of FTX, Trevor Milton of Nikola—each a cautionary tale. But why does this keep happening? More importantly, how can investors and venture capitalists spot the red flags before disaster strikes?
After decades coaching startup founders and executives, and through intensive psychological profiling research in my book, Founders Keepers, it’s clear that the qualities which make founders extraordinary can also lead them into ethical peril.
Ambition Gone Rogue Ambition is the engine of innovation, but when unchecked, it can spiral into something destructive. Elizabeth Holmes, once hailed as the next Steve Jobs, turned ambition into deception, sacrificing integrity for the illusion of success. Her willingness to misrepresent Theranos's technology eventually led to fraud convictions and a 11-year prison sentence. Similarly, Trevor Milton fabricated demonstrations of Nikola’s hydrogen-powered trucks, deceiving investors and regulators alike. Ambition that isn’t tempered by reality becomes toxic, pushing founders to prioritize appearances over substance.
Narcissism and the Cult of Personality A striking number of fraudulent founders exhibit narcissistic traits. Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is disturbingly common among indicted entrepreneurs like Holmes, Adam Neumann, and Billy McFarland. These individuals have inflated self-worth, entitlement, and a troubling lack of empathy—traits that enable them to manipulate investors, employees, and markets. Adam Neumann’s charismatic leadership at WeWork masked a self-serving agenda. He leased his own properties to WeWork and indulged in extravagances funded by investor capital. His eventual downfall underscores a critical point: charisma and confidence, unchecked by accountability, can devastate companies.
Pressure, Risk, and Rationalization Founders operate in pressure cookers. Investor demands, market competition, and internal expectations can distort ethical boundaries. Under such strain, founders rationalize questionable decisions—initially minor, then increasingly severe. Sam Bankman-Fried’s FTX saga exemplifies this slippery slope. Praised for his effective altruism, he secretly diverted customer funds into his own hedge fund, creating one of history’s largest financial implosions. Under extreme pressure to perform, ethical lines blurred into oblivion.
The Dark Triad and Founder Psychology Research identifies a psychological pattern—the Dark Triad: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Founders exhibiting these traits manipulate, charm, and dominate others effortlessly. Their moral compasses malfunction, viewing ethics as mere obstacles. Martin Shkreli of Turing Pharmaceuticals raised drug prices mercilessly, justified as smart business. He ultimately faced securities fraud charges. This combination of manipulative charm, moral disengagement, and ruthless pragmatism frequently ends in corporate ruin.
Red Flags Investors Can’t Ignore VCs and investors must vigilantly recognize signals of potential ethical crises:
Case Study: When Good Intentions Go Bad Consider Charlie Javice the Frank founder. Desperate to sell her startup, she fabricated millions of fake users, deceiving JPMorgan into a $175 million acquisition. Ambition, pressure, and opportunity collided disastrously, underscoring that even well-intentioned founders can fall if ethical vigilance wanes.
Prevention through Awareness and Systems To mitigate these risks, investors must foster cultures of accountability. This means:
Healthy skepticism, combined with robust systems, creates a strong firewall against unethical behavior.
Redemption and Self-Awareness Not all troubled founders are irredeemable. Many need interventions—coaching, accountability partners, and structured feedback—to prevent ethical slippage. Self-awareness is key. Founders who reflect on their blind spots and acknowledge limitations have a far better prognosis.
Investing Wisely Means Looking Deeper The stark truth for investors is this: brilliance without integrity is dangerous. Investing isn't merely betting on ideas; it's assessing character. The cost of ignoring red flags is staggering, not just financially, but reputationally and ethically. Ask yourself one simple question when evaluating founders: If they weren't successful, would their behaviors still seem acceptable? The answer reveals everything. The line between visionary and fraudster is thin. Vigilance, skepticism, and structured accountability are critical tools in protecting your investments—and ensuring the next headline isn't about your portfolio.
Ambition Gone Rogue Ambition is the engine of innovation, but when unchecked, it can spiral into something destructive. Elizabeth Holmes, once hailed as the next Steve Jobs, turned ambition into deception, sacrificing integrity for the illusion of success. Her willingness to misrepresent Theranos's technology eventually led to fraud convictions and a 11-year prison sentence. Similarly, Trevor Milton fabricated demonstrations of Nikola’s hydrogen-powered trucks, deceiving investors and regulators alike. Ambition that isn’t tempered by reality becomes toxic, pushing founders to prioritize appearances over substance.
Narcissism and the Cult of Personality A striking number of fraudulent founders exhibit narcissistic traits. Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is disturbingly common among indicted entrepreneurs like Holmes, Adam Neumann, and Billy McFarland. These individuals have inflated self-worth, entitlement, and a troubling lack of empathy—traits that enable them to manipulate investors, employees, and markets. Adam Neumann’s charismatic leadership at WeWork masked a self-serving agenda. He leased his own properties to WeWork and indulged in extravagances funded by investor capital. His eventual downfall underscores a critical point: charisma and confidence, unchecked by accountability, can devastate companies.
Pressure, Risk, and Rationalization Founders operate in pressure cookers. Investor demands, market competition, and internal expectations can distort ethical boundaries. Under such strain, founders rationalize questionable decisions—initially minor, then increasingly severe. Sam Bankman-Fried’s FTX saga exemplifies this slippery slope. Praised for his effective altruism, he secretly diverted customer funds into his own hedge fund, creating one of history’s largest financial implosions. Under extreme pressure to perform, ethical lines blurred into oblivion.
The Dark Triad and Founder Psychology Research identifies a psychological pattern—the Dark Triad: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Founders exhibiting these traits manipulate, charm, and dominate others effortlessly. Their moral compasses malfunction, viewing ethics as mere obstacles. Martin Shkreli of Turing Pharmaceuticals raised drug prices mercilessly, justified as smart business. He ultimately faced securities fraud charges. This combination of manipulative charm, moral disengagement, and ruthless pragmatism frequently ends in corporate ruin.
Red Flags Investors Can’t Ignore VCs and investors must vigilantly recognize signals of potential ethical crises:
- Accountability Gaps: Founders who deflect blame, resist feedback, or evade responsibility when faced with failures.
- Deceptive Fluency: Founders who remain intentionally vague, changing narratives to fit different audiences, lack transparency, and dodge specifics.
- Weak Governance: Companies lacking robust financial controls, passive boards, or weak compliance protocols enable founder misconduct.
- Excessive Charm: Overly charismatic leaders who evade scrutiny, foster cult-like devotion, and dismiss ethical concerns as trivial.
Case Study: When Good Intentions Go Bad Consider Charlie Javice the Frank founder. Desperate to sell her startup, she fabricated millions of fake users, deceiving JPMorgan into a $175 million acquisition. Ambition, pressure, and opportunity collided disastrously, underscoring that even well-intentioned founders can fall if ethical vigilance wanes.
Prevention through Awareness and Systems To mitigate these risks, investors must foster cultures of accountability. This means:
- Rigorous Due Diligence: Deep vetting of founder histories, not just their pitch decks.
- Transparent Governance: Enforcing independent oversight, clear reporting, and stringent ethical guidelines.
- Balanced Teams: Encouraging founders to build leadership teams empowered to challenge decisions.
Healthy skepticism, combined with robust systems, creates a strong firewall against unethical behavior.
Redemption and Self-Awareness Not all troubled founders are irredeemable. Many need interventions—coaching, accountability partners, and structured feedback—to prevent ethical slippage. Self-awareness is key. Founders who reflect on their blind spots and acknowledge limitations have a far better prognosis.
Investing Wisely Means Looking Deeper The stark truth for investors is this: brilliance without integrity is dangerous. Investing isn't merely betting on ideas; it's assessing character. The cost of ignoring red flags is staggering, not just financially, but reputationally and ethically. Ask yourself one simple question when evaluating founders: If they weren't successful, would their behaviors still seem acceptable? The answer reveals everything. The line between visionary and fraudster is thin. Vigilance, skepticism, and structured accountability are critical tools in protecting your investments—and ensuring the next headline isn't about your portfolio.
Dr. Rich Hagberg is the author of Founders Keepers: Why Founders Are Built to Fail and What It Takes to Succeed, and a consulting psychologist who has coached hundreds of startup founders and their teams and thousands of executives over more than 40 years in Silicon Valley.
INVESTOR ALERT:
If you are an investor,
contact us
for the Founders Red Flag Checklist.
share this
Related Articles
Related Articles

The Leadership Tightrope If you lead long enough, you start to realize something uncomfortable: everything that makes you effective also threatens to undo you. Your drive becomes impatience. Your confidence becomes stubbornness. Your empathy turns into guilt. The longer you lead, the more you realize that the job isn’t about choosing one trait over another — it’s about learning to carry both. That’s what maturity looks like in leadership. It’s not balance. It’s tension well managed. The False Comfort of Either/Or Most leaders crave clarity. We want rules. Playbooks. Certainty. Should I be tough or kind? Decisive or collaborative? Visionary or practical? The insecure part of the brain hates contradiction. It wants the “right answer.” But leadership lives in the messy middle — the place where both truths exist, and neither feels comfortable. The best leaders aren’t either/or thinkers. They’re both/and navigators. A Story from the Field I once coached a CEO who told me, “I’m torn between holding people accountable and being empathetic.” I said, “Why do you think those are opposites?” He paused, then laughed. “Because it’s easier that way.” Exactly. It’s easier to pick a lane than to learn how to drive in two at once. He eventually realized the real question wasn’t which side to choose, but when and how to lean into each. He became known as “the fairest tough boss in the building.” That’s the magic of integration — toughness with tenderness, vision with realism, clarity with compassion. Why Paradox Feels So Hard Contradictions feel like hypocrisy when you haven’t made peace with your own complexity. If you believe you have to be one consistent version of yourself — confident, decisive, inspiring — then every moment of doubt feels like fraud. But the truth is, great leaders are contradictory because humans are contradictory. You can be grounded and ambitious, humble and proud, certain and still learning. The work is not to eliminate the tension — it’s to get comfortable feeling it. The Psychology Behind It Our brains love binaries because they make the world simple. But complexity — holding opposites — is the mark of advanced thinking. Psychologists call this integrative complexity — the ability to see multiple perspectives and blend them into a coherent approach. It’s not compromise; it’s synthesis. It’s saying, “Both are true, and I can move between them without losing my integrity.” That’s where wisdom lives — in the movement, not the answer. Funny But True A client once told me, “I feel like half monk, half gladiator.” I said, “Congratulations. That means you’re leading.” Because that’s what the job demands: peace and fight, compassion and steel. If you can’t hold both, you end up overusing one until it breaks you. The Cost of One-Dimensional Leadership We’ve all worked for the “results-only” leader — brilliant, efficient, and emotionally tone-deaf. And the “people-first” leader — kind, loyal, and allergic to accountability. Both are exhausting. Both create lopsided cultures. When leaders pick a single identity — visionary, disciplinarian, nurturer, driver — they lose range. They become caricatures of their strengths. True greatness comes from emotional range, not purity. The Paradox Mindset Here’s how integrative leaders think differently: They value principles over preferences. They can be decisive without being defensive. They know empathy isn’t weakness and toughness isn’t cruelty. They trade perfection for adaptability. They’re the ones who can zoom in and out — from the numbers to the people, from the details to the meaning — without losing coherence. They’re not consistent in behavior. They’re consistent in values. That’s the difference. How to Practice Both/And Thinking Spot your overused strength. The strength that’s hurting you most is the one you lean on too much. If you’re decisive, try listening longer. If you’re compassionate, try being direct faster. Ask, “What’s the opposite quality trying to teach me?” Impatience teaches urgency; patience teaches perspective. You need both. Invite your opposite. Bring someone onto your team who balances your extremes — not a mirror, a counterweight. Hold paradox out loud. Tell your team, “This decision has tension in it — and that’s okay.” Modeling that normalizes complexity for everyone else. A Moment of Self-Honesty I’ve spent decades watching leaders chase “clarity” like it’s peace. But peace doesn’t come from eliminating tension. It comes from trusting yourself inside it. Once you accept that leadership will always feel contradictory, you stop fighting it — and start flowing with it. You don’t need to be the calmest, toughest, or most visionary person in the room. You just need to be the one who can stay whole while the world pulls you in opposite directions. Your Challenge This Week When you catch yourself thinking, “Should I be X or Y?” — stop. Ask instead, “How can I be both?” Then practice it in one small moment. Be kind and firm. Bold and humble. Fast and thoughtful. That’s where growth hides — in the discomfort between two truths. Final Word The best leaders aren’t balanced. They’re integrated. They’ve stopped trying to erase their contradictions and started using them as fuel. They’ve learned that leadership isn’t about certainty. It’s about capacity — the capacity to hold complexity without losing your center. That’s not chaos. That’s mastery.




