I 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 founde

I 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.