I do think a founder has special permission to make sweeping changes across an organization.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
If a company is profitable, the founder is in control. If it's not, investors are in control.
There is a long history of founders returning to companies and doing great things. Founders are able to set the vision for their companies with an authority no one else can.
I mean I wasn't a founder in the sense that I contributed anything scientifically but in the sense that I signed the corporation papers and, and owned founder's stock.
One of the perks of being the founder is that you get to build the company in your image.
It helps to have founded and run a company if you're going to help somebody run a company who is a founder.
Most people have a very strong sense of organizational ownership, but I think what people have to own is an innovation agenda, and everything is shared in terms of the implementation.
Many leaders of big organizations, I think, don't believe that change is possible. But if you look at history, things do change, and if your business is static, you're likely to have issues.
The thing that's confusing for investors is that founders don't know how to be CEO. I didn't know how to do the job when I was a CEO. Founder CEOs don't know how to be CEOs, but it doesn't mean they can't learn. The question is... can the founder learn that job and can they tolerate all mistakes they will make doing it?
The big value of the founder running the company is really two things: the knowledge and the commitment.
If the founder comes to work every day, and it's a struggle, that permeates the whole organization.