The opinions expressed by Entrepreneur authors are their very own.
If you have not caught the dialogue around “founder mode“Most recently, let me walk you thru: Brian Chesky, founder and CEO of Airbnb, did just that recently celebrated for refusing to step out of the driver’s seat in response to assurances that the decision to retain control is one of the reasons for Airbnb’s enviable growth. Some even compared him to Steve Jobs, and Chesky was clearly delighted with this association.
But before we advocate founder mode as the ultimate tool for creating a unicorn, let alone building a successful business, we’d like to look at and analyze why and when it really works, and why it could sometimes cause harm to each employees and the company itself.
But above all – positives.
Yes, the founders have a vision, and yes, they are uniquely positioned – and invested – to show that vision into reality. They are also normally driven by purpose, which is no small thing in the world of entrepreneurship. After all, not everyone can deeply imagine in something unless they are the one who got here up with it. Take a look at Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang’s comments from earlier this yr where he told Gen Z graduates to lower your expectations about work. His comments were met with some backlash, but they show that few people will likely be as committed to the cause as the company’s founder.
From a growth perspective, the longer a founder stays with the company, the higher the company performs. Moreover, the presence and involvement of the founder gives employees a signal that the company has the strength to survive and that the founders themselves need to ensure the company’s future.
Another key aspect of operating in founder mode is the ability to be highly flexible. With less bureaucracy, founders can make decisions more effectively and reply to changes faster. Companies with multiple levels of acceptance often struggle to maneuver at the essential speed.
However, as a company grows, teams of one rarely get (every piece of) tasks done.
Any experienced business leader will inform you how vital it could be to surround yourself with people you trust from the very starting – whether as an advisor or leader. I argue that founders need experts in their very own right who offer something they cannot—or perhaps greater than they might offer on their very own. The same mindset, balanced with different perspectives and experiences, is essential. Innovation cannot occur among the “yes” crowd.
When founders do not relinquish some degree of control, delegate responsibilities, and empower their successors, they create a situation that creates frustration for everyone involved. Burnout, exhaustion, disappointment… you name it.
Therefore, leaders must recognize the signs that it is time to relinquish full control of the company. If business slows down because every decision requires the founder’s approval – creating a bottleneck in the decision-making process – this is a clear signal to delegate some responsibilities. Another signal could also be that the founder slows down expansion into recent markets. Recognizing these signs is key because they indicate the right time to exit founding mode.
As someone who helped realize the founder’s mission greater than a decade ago – and continues to support it – I know from personal experience how vital a role my colleagues and I played in bringing that mission to fruition. And I know our founder would say the same thing and say he doesn’t regret being sidelined in some areas.
In fact, he could be the first to inform you that you would be able to’t rely on a founder to create the corporate culture himself – he can implement it and lead by example, but the only people are managers and mid-level team members who might help market it on a broader level. Additionally, we cannot ignore the proven fact that a highly engaged founder also influences workplace culture. Working for a founder who is all the time in “founder mode” can result in the feeling of being micromanaged, which may have a measurable negative impact. Although on a positive and personal note, working very closely with the founder over the last 12 years has demonstrated my great drive and purpose – there is no one like our CEO who can drive the company forward.
However, when the founder empowers successors to run and grow the company, they create an engaged workforce and a thriving culture while the founder can focus on the overarching goals. Think of it this fashion: when a commander entrusts his generals with day-to-day tasks, not only do they strengthen loyalty and increase crew efficiency, but he also can develop a broader strategy. Like ancient generals relying on captains to guide their battalions, victory depends not only on vision, but on strong leadership at every level.
Even then, scalability stays vital. Not every company goals to grow beyond founder mode and move into one other mode. For example, if a company only sells smartphones, its growth potential is limited and the founder can retain full control. The specialist knowledge required to run this sort of business stays fairly constant. However, if the company expands into other areas (apps, software, cars, TVs), it’s going to must hire people with skills beyond the founder’s knowledge.
Similarly, evolving into a leader does not mean that founders must completely withdraw into the background and operate anonymously. Finding the right balance is vital – and Elon Musk is a good example of this. Maintains a founder’s aura by delegating day-to-day activities to leaders overseeing each division. Ultimately, Musk is still the visionary and overall leader of his corporations.
The truth is that founders will all the time have some a part of them in founder mode – it’s a mindset shaped by years of struggles, wins, losses, and lessons. It’s not something you may easily outgrow; some even say it’s something you are born with. However, founders must evolve into fully functional CEOs slightly than stretching themselves too thin, which ultimately advantages no one. While some people make this transition naturally and others struggle, they need to know when, what, and methods to delegate effectively for the greater good.