Noam Wasserman (Harvard, USC) studies exactly this in a paper called "Rich vs King". As you can guess from the name, the conclusion is that bringing in outside generally management maximizes the expected value of equity.

https://hbr.org/2008/02/the-founders-dilemma

Thanks!

One thing the article brings up is that "success" may not be synonymous with "financial success". If you have a specific burning vision for a thing that should exist in the world, it might not be the most profitable thing, and the founder staying on is probably a good way for exactly that product to exist - but an outside CEO might choose to compromise the product vision and significantly expand the potential market in doing so.

Very true!

I suspect involuntary founder replacement is much more common in venture-funded companies. While your, my, and the founder's definitions of success may not be synonymous with "financial success", many VCs and their LPs may not feel the same. Obviously it's tricky to fully generalize, but the point is that VC can be expensive if founder and investor motivations aren't closely aligned.

> What is the evidence for this?

GP's burning vision, of course.

I once had my vision burn so hard my landlord charged me for the floor paneling.

Also, the vast majority of startups do not lack for drive & vision, but most will fail. Vision may be necessary for a new company, but it certainly isn't sufficient.

It's also entirely possible that Jobs would have run Apple into the ground in the mid 80s. Apple III and Lisa were expensive, unmitigated failures, and the Mac arrived as Jobs was leaving. Would Jobs have gone along with the high-price/high-margin strategy of Sculley/Gassee?

Was about to say exactly that. Yes, Jobs 2.0 was a massive success at Apple, but it's not clear to me that Apple would have survived the 1.0 -> 2.0 learning curve.

It’s the standard HN cult of the founder post. Goes right along with the idea that early employees deserve pretty much nothing because “it’s the founders taking all the risk”.

Agreed. It's amazing how many people (including many here) prioritize being CEO of a successful company over being the founder of a successful company. Attaching your Self worth to the continued adoration of others in the business community is silly and dangerous. I know people who founded hugely successful businesses and their moving on from being CEO played a big role.