Mark Zuckerberg, Entrepreneurship, and the Uneasy Truth Behind Vision

“When vision turns into power.”

 

(A continuation of my leadership conversation)

In my previous piece on leadership, I questioned something that still sits uncomfortably with me: whether modern leadership is about genuine service or simply a well-packaged system of control. That thought didn’t end there. If anything, it pushed me toward another closely related idea—entrepreneurship.

Because if leadership decides how power is used, entrepreneurship often decides who gets it in the first place.

And there is perhaps no better—or more complicated—example than Mark Zuckerberg.

This is not an attempt to glorify him, nor to tear him down. It’s an attempt to slow the narrative down and look at it without the usual shine.

Entrepreneurship: A Bigger Idea Than We Admit

Entrepreneurship is often reduced to a headline: start a company, scale it, exit rich. But that definition misses the real point.

At its core, entrepreneurship is about spotting an opportunity before it becomes obvious—often without having all the resources, certainty, or clarity in place. It’s about acting first and figuring things out later. That opportunity doesn’t just affect the founder; it shapes customers, employees, markets, and sometimes entire societies.

That’s the romantic version.

The uncomfortable question is what happens after the opportunity is captured.

Zuckerberg Before the Empire

Mark Zuckerberg’s interest in computers wasn’t accidental or trendy. It started early and stayed consistent. While studying at Harvard, he helped create what later became Facebook—originally a simple tool to connect university students using real identities.

The growth was fast, almost shockingly so. Within days, students signed up in the thousands. Within weeks, it spread across campuses. Within years, it reshaped how people communicate globally.

What’s interesting is that Zuckerberg didn’t begin with a clear plan to dominate global social interaction. That ambition seems to have evolved alongside scale. And scale changes everything.

Vision alone didn’t build Facebook. Timing mattered. Access mattered. Being in the right ecosystem mattered.

So it’s fair to ask:
Was this pure entrepreneurial genius—or genius amplified by circumstance?

Probably both.

The Traits We Applaud—And Rarely Question

Zuckerberg is often presented as the model entrepreneur. The traits usually highlighted are familiar:

• A clear, almost stubborn vision

• An ability to build strong, highly driven teams

• A willingness to take risks when outcomes are uncertain

• Consistency and persistence over long periods of time

These traits are real. They matter. And they can be learned.

But here’s where I start feeling uneasy.

If these traits are teachable, why do only a handful of people ever reach this level of influence and wealth?

Teams, Empowerment, and the Gap No One Talks About

Entrepreneurship theory loves to emphasize collaboration, open communication, and empowering teams. Zuckerberg himself has often spoken about surrounding himself with motivated people and trusting them to execute.

Yet when we zoom out, the structure remains familiar.

A very small group holds decision-making power.
Millions of workers execute.
Billions of users create value—often without realizing it.

This doesn’t erase Zuckerberg’s entrepreneurial skill. But it does challenge the idea that success is evenly shared just because teams exist.

If entrepreneurship is truly collective, why does the reward curve look so steep?

Innovation Isn’t Neutral

There’s no denying the impact of Zuckerberg’s innovation. Facebook didn’t just connect people—it reshaped social behavior, politics, business, and even personal identity.

It created opportunities for small businesses.
It gave people a global voice.
It built an entirely new digital economy.

But innovation at this scale also concentrates power. When one platform influences how information flows across societies, innovation stops being just creative—it becomes political, cultural, and economic authority.

And authority without clear accountability should always make us pause.

Social Progress or Centralized Influence?

Today, Facebook—under Meta—is often framed as a driver of social and economic development. It enables commerce, connection, and communication on a global level.

That’s true.

But scale comes with consequences. When one company shapes how billions of people interact, think, and consume information, entrepreneurship starts to look less like opportunity creation and more like private governance.

And governance, whether intentional or not, changes the moral weight of success.

Not a Verdict—Just an Honest Reflection

I don’t question Mark Zuckerberg’s intelligence, discipline, or work ethic. His achievements are real, and his influence is undeniable. He proves what is possible when vision, persistence, and timing intersect.

But admiration shouldn’t end critical thinking.

If entrepreneurship repeatedly leads to extreme concentration of wealth and power, then maybe the issue isn’t the entrepreneur—but the system that celebrates this outcome as the ultimate success.

The Question That Won’t Let Me Go

If leadership can quietly turn into control, and entrepreneurship can quietly turn into dominance, then the real challenge isn’t learning how to build companies.

It’s learning how to build them without losing balance, fairness, and accountability.

So I’ll leave you with the same kind of uncomfortable question I raised in my leadership piece:

Can entrepreneurship truly serve society at massive scale—or does scale inevitably turn vision into power?

I don’t have a perfect answer.
But I’m no longer comfortable pretending the question doesn’t matter.