>"It would really bother me to think that in a few years, my successor could weaken something I've spent 35 years building, my entire adult life," says Zimmer,

>"It would really bother me to think that in a few years, my successor could weaken something I've spent 35 years building, my entire adult life," says Zimmer, 58. "That would be disturbing." >When pressed, Mason says it's unlikely that his successor will be as successful. Of course, because no successor has as large a stake in it as the original founder. Maybe they should do it like a kingship, slightly modified -- where the successor inherits HALF of the founder's equity. You would stand a much better chance of attracting the best people if they were going to get the billions when you stepped down -- subject to vesting and performance. Why would the top people want to join an existing company when the big equity has already been taken out of it? So, when you retire you vest half of the Founder's stock, if you've been there "long enough". Take a company from $10B market cap to $20B and you've doubled the Founder's share, so you get an amount equal to what the whole thing was when you started, and leave an equal amount to lure the next CEO. It's late so I may well be missing obvious flaws in the scheme, but some kind of equity retention strategy seems to be needed to promote long-term vitality because the current m.o. is the original founders and investors bleed it all out.