Re:Hype and plunder: Domo a new low for self-indulgent IPOs
by aetherson on Tuesday June 05, 2018 @08:18PM
(#17243357)
You have a false dichotomy between "running by committee" and "giving the founder complete control." Trying to have the board literally run the company is not generally a great idea. Having one or more non-founders in the leadership of the company, including possibly the CEO spot, is a fine idea and was how it used to pretty routinely be done.
When the company is very small, it probably doesn't make sense to inject an outside leader. The company isn't worth anything at that point: if it fails, it just fails.
But by the time the company has product-market fit, traction, revenue, and is trying to scale up, there may be plenty of reason to have non-founder leaders. Way before 20-30 years old.
Re:Hype and plunder: Domo a new low for self-indulgent IPOs
by rossdavidh on Tuesday June 05, 2018 @10:18PM
(#17243891)
Certainly there is a continuum there, but the decisions that a founder makes that are most likely to be critical for a startup's success, are the very ones that are most likely to be opposed by non-founders, because they will be the most unconventional. Typical startups fail.
"how it used to pretty routinely be done" was kind of like what was called "adult supervision", as I recall, back in the late 90's. I don't find that the success rate of the late 90's startups (the dot-com bust) to be all that much better than the current boom (which, granted, is not totally bust yet but no doubt will).
In case (1), running it by committee is going to mess it up. The nature of a startup is that it is not doing ordinary, well-tested things, so no committee is going to approve what they do. Only a founder (or two) can get things off the ground with a coherent vision.
In case (2), you are screwed whether the founder has absolute control or not. Just don't invest, whether you get control or not.
Now all this may be very different for a Fortune 500, twenty or thirty year old company with an already established business model and good cashflow, etc. But this is talking about new companies, which absolutely should be under control of the founder.
Even in the case of older companies, the example of Apple after they kicked out Steve Jobs, before they brought him back, ought to give one pause about not letting the founders have too much control.