3 ms·
His mistake was not - taking LSD - arguing with board members - wearing cargo shorts Rather, his mistake was not retaining control of the company he founded
by cercatrova 6y ago
His mistake was not
- taking LSD
- arguing with board members
- wearing cargo shorts
Rather, his mistake was not retaining control of the company he founded, either by bootstrapping it entirely or not taking venture capital. Contrast this to the recent Basecamp debacle, both cofounders owned 100% of the company and could do as they pleased, no one could fire them.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- danielrhodes 6y agoI see this as very misguided. Companies do not exist for the pleasure of the founders, they exist to serve a need that is greater than the founders. If a founder (or any executive for that matter) is threatening the well-being of the company, having board oversight is a benefit. Thus, retaining 100% control of a board is not always in your company's best interests, and can be a big liability. You want more accountability, not less. To that degree, even if the company does not take venture capital, you as the CEO might still want people on your board that can be good advisors and hold you accountable. The board is the CEO's boss, and just like with any boss, behavior has consequences.
- cercatrova 6y ago> Companies do not exist for the pleasure of the founders I disagree with this notion, even as you might agree. If I'm making a company, it exists for my sole pleasure. If it didn't, then I wouldn't have bothered creating the company in the first place. > The board is the CEO's boss, and just like with any boss, behavior has consequences. I would make a company to get away from having a boss at all, not so that a board could now be my new boss.