3 ms·

This is why you don't give up control of your company no matter how nice things seem. Founders should maintain absolute control over 3 out of 5 board seats. The

by staunch 12y ago

This is why you don't give up control of your company no matter how nice things seem. Founders should maintain absolute control over 3 out of 5 board seats. The Parker rule. Whatever his flaws the company wouldn't exist without him. His investors knew who he was before they invested. They should be forced to negotiate. They should not be able to fire him. A16Z is an investor in 500px. They claim to support founders so I'm sure they will make a public statement explaining how they tried to help this guy but were outvoted.

argonaut 12y ago
It seems to me that Oleg's cofounders were involved in pushing him out, in which case the founders certainly could have had control (among themselves).
acjohnson55 12y ago
That's ridiculous. At some point, if you don't have majority share of the company, that means enough other people have taken large of stake in its success that it's no longer "yours" alone. I don't buy this idea that just because someone started a company, they deserve to be dictator for life.
- staunch 12y ago
  Founders are dictators at day one. The question is whether they should give up control to an investor run committee. Remember that most investors no ability to run a company and have a portfolio of companies to fall back on.
  - wpietri 12y ago
    I look forward to seeing your stats on that, because that's not my experience. I guess if you're a solo founder who doesn't take much money, you can try to remain some sort of generalissimo. But almost every company of substance is controlled by an investor-run committee; it's called a board. Being a dictator at day one is kinda boring: you're the admiral of a fleet that fits in your bathtub. Most interesting things take collaboration: shared ideas, shared labor, shared capital. And that generally means sharing control. Good people rarely want to work for dictators.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - staunch 12y ago
      All being a dictator means is having absolute power. It says nothing about how the company is run. Zuckerberg would almost certainly have been replaced like Steve Jobs was if he hadn't maintained board control.
      - derwiki 12y ago
        I think this distinction may have caused the disagreement in this thread. A dictator as a "call all the shots" is very different than "maintains board control". The latter can mean you don't even work on product at all, but have the assurance you can't be kicked out of your own company.

by staunch 12y ago

argonaut 12y ago

It seems to me that Oleg's cofounders were involved in pushing him out, in which case the founders certainly could have had control (among themselves).

acjohnson55 12y ago

That's ridiculous. At some point, if you don't have majority share of the company, that means enough other people have taken large of stake in its success that it's no longer "yours" alone. I don't buy this idea that just because someone started a company, they deserve to be dictator for life.

staunch 12y ago
Founders are dictators at day one. The question is whether they should give up control to an investor run committee. Remember that most investors no ability to run a company and have a portfolio of companies to fall back on.
- wpietri 12y ago
  I look forward to seeing your stats on that, because that's not my experience. I guess if you're a solo founder who doesn't take much money, you can try to remain some sort of generalissimo. But almost every company of substance is controlled by an investor-run committee; it's called a board. Being a dictator at day one is kinda boring: you're the admiral of a fleet that fits in your bathtub. Most interesting things take collaboration: shared ideas, shared labor, shared capital. And that generally means sharing control. Good people rarely want to work for dictators.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - staunch 12y ago
    All being a dictator means is having absolute power. It says nothing about how the company is run. Zuckerberg would almost certainly have been replaced like Steve Jobs was if he hadn't maintained board control.
    - derwiki 12y ago
      I think this distinction may have caused the disagreement in this thread. A dictator as a "call all the shots" is very different than "maintains board control". The latter can mean you don't even work on product at all, but have the assurance you can't be kicked out of your own company.