cyberlaxamana

by Albert Chung In the HBS MBA elective Founders’ Dilemmas we often talk about the rich vs. king tradeoff where founders often start out wanting to be “Rich and Regal” but quickly find themselves having to make choices that require a tradeoff between getting rich and maintaining control (see Prof. Noam Wasserman’s blog post about the Rich vs. King tradeoff ). Personally, I have a difficult time with the tradeoff as giving up control does not necessarily ensure getting rich, whereas retaining control does guarantee that you will be King and the only variable is how large (or small) your kingdom will be. Perhaps this is why Mark Pincus advises entrepreneurs : “All that matters is that you have control of the company. Don’t give up control.  If you’re going to give up control, go home.” In fact, when I look at the startups that have truly made a large impact on our generation , almost all are situations where the founding CEO remained “King” well beyond finding product market fit. Be...

by Kyle Lui Founders of lean start-ups often focus on rapid iterative testing, proving out your concept and hypothesis, product market fit and managing cash burn. Leadership is often ignored because, as a founder (or co-founder), you are the leader. But what happens when lean start-ups reach an inflection point and management change is on the table? From The Entrepreneurial Manager course (TEM) at HBS, we’ve learned that most technology start-ups change leadership either due to poor performance or exceptional performance. The business is failing so the VC investor wants to kick you out. Alternatively, the business is exploding and has outgrown you. Are there generalizations to be made with regard to leadership change? Looking at various examples, Facebook is perhaps one of the most well-known (and exceptional) of a founder staying on as CEO through several rounds of funding and explosive growth. Mark Zuckerburg continues to lead the $50 billion company today and brought in experi...