Tamar Yehoshua argues that being a well-run company and being a successful company are not correlated: some highly successful companies are internally chaotic, and some well-run companies fail. This matters for evaluating where to work — "is this well run?" is the wrong diagnostic question. See Twitter Lesson: PMF Survives Dysfunction, "Complexity" Masks Leadership Avoidance for a specific case where product-market fit visibly survived organizational dysfunction.
Hypergrowth naturally produces chaos: infrastructure and internal communication break down under fast headcount and customer growth, and it's common for roughly half of staff to have under six months' tenure. Yehoshua treats this as normal and expected until a company reaches roughly the 5,000–10,000-employee range, when it enters a more stable "growth engine" phase.
Not all chaos should be tolerated. Growth-driven operational chaos (systems and process lagging headcount) is expected and survivable. Chaos caused by leadership — strategy that keeps changing, or people's projects being reassigned so nothing ever ships — is a different, "bad" kind of chaos, and Yehoshua treats it as a legitimate reason to leave a company.
Yehoshua puts a rough number on this: startups can tolerate real organizational chaos, but once a company crosses roughly 5,000–10,000 employees, it needs professional, cost- and execution-focused management rather than founder-style improvisation. The right amount of chaos to tolerate (or actively fix) is a function of current headcount/growth phase, not a fixed ideal — early-stage messiness that looks like poor management is often just the appropriate stage of the company.
Tamar Yehoshua is explicit that being 'well run' and being commercially successful are not correlated in either direction: many successful, hypergrowth companies are internally chaotic and unhappy places to work, while some well-run, well-liked companies simply flatline. Neither orderliness nor chaos predicts outcome on its own.