Hacker News Reader

Comment by noncoml | Hacker News Reader

Probably in the majority of the cases it makes sense for the founder to step aside for a new CEO, but I can only imagine how brave and difficult decision must be.

Edit: Maybe some HN folks who have done the same can share their stories?

View on HN

It all depends on how you want to delegate the work. As companies grow, the founders will hit the limits of their own experience. They then need to hire help, and place that help within in the organization. Eventually, with success, they either step up and build the skills needed to succeed as CEO, or they realize they delegated everything to others. In that latter case, it makes sense to just step aside and let the team you built do the job they were hired to do, and give the CEO title to someone else. When the founder is still the largest shareholder, the true decision making authority does not change... but they can reserve it for special occasions, and the rest of the time get out of the way and let their team carry on.

If the new CEO can uphold the vision that gives the founder time to do other things. Things he loves, work and think out of the box.

There are also obvious upsides to stepping aside - you can get some more free time at minimum. If the business is doing well, you might also have the opportunity to take some cash out.

Never easy to do this. But most founders' mindset is to do whatever is best for the survivability and growth of the company. That's the path I took.

I don't know if that's the mindset of most founders, but it is probably the mindset of most founders who have a company that is still alive.

> do whatever is best for the survivability and growth of the company

I don’t think there is any doubt about that. But I think it’s very difficult to have such a clear mind to know/understand/accept that another CEO will drive your company better than you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com