How would you know? When a founder is out unwillingly, most of the time don't both sides pretend it was willing and amicable because they know it looks bad?

There was a thread on HN some time ago discussing how different growth stages needed different people in the hot seat, and the fate of a company was often decided by the founder's willingness to cede control to someone with the right skills and experience. I think it came up in the context of VCs wanting to bring in CEOs for this purpose and the pushback they encountered.

Ofc VCs would prefer ceo they fully control ;-) what else is new?