Why ‘Founder Mode’ is Not a One-Size-Fits-All Solution to Leadership

If you haven’t caught the dialogue around “founder mode” of late, let me get you up to speed: Brian Chesky, founder and CEO of Airbnb, has recently been celebrated for his refusal to step back from the driver’s seat amidst assertions that his decision to retain control is one of the reasons for Airbnb’s enviable growth. Some have even compared him to Steve Jobs, with Chesky apparently downright thrilled by the association.

But before we champion founder mode as the be-all and end-all for creating a unicorn, let alone building a successful business, we need to explore and dissect why and when it works and also why it can, at times, do a disservice to both the employees and the business itself.

But first things first — the positives.

Yes, founders have a vision, and yes, they’re uniquely positioned — and invested — when it comes to turning that vision into reality. They’re also typically purpose-driven, which is no small thing in the entrepreneurial world. After all, not everyone can buy into something in depth when they aren’t the ones who conceived it. Take a look at Nvidia’s CEO, Jensen Huang, comments from earlier this year, in which he told Gen Z grads to lower their expectations about work. His comments were met with some backlash, but they drive home the point that few people will be as committed to the cause as the company’s founder.

Related: What Is Founder Mode and Why Is It Better Than Manager Mode?

From a growth perspective, the longer a founder sticks around, the better a company performs. Plus, having the founder present and engaged signals to the workforce that the company has sticking power and that the founders themselves are eager to power the business into the future.

Another key aspect of operating in founder mode is the ability to be highly adaptable. With less bureaucracy, founders can make decisions more efficiently and respond quickly to changes. Businesses with multiple layers of approval often struggle to move at the necessary speed.

But as a business grows, one-man-bands rarely get (every element of) the job done.

Any savvy business leader will tell you just how crucial it can be to surround yourself with people you trust from the get-go — whether in an advisory capacity or a leadership one. I’d argue that founders need experts in their own right who offer something they can’t — or perhaps more than they could offer on their own. Similar mindsets offset by different perspectives and experiences are vital. Innovation can’t happen amongst a crowd of “yesses.”

When founders don’t relinquish some degree of control, delegate responsibilities and empower their deputies, they create a situation that is ripe for frustration for everyone else involved. Burnout, exhaustion, disenchantment… you name it.

That’s why leaders need to recognize the signs that indicate it’s time to let go of full control of the company. If operations slow down because every decision requires the founder’s approval — creating a bottleneck in the decision-making process — it’s a clear signal to delegate some responsibilities. Another sign might be the founder slowing down expansion into new markets. Recognizing these signs is key, as they point to the right time to move beyond founder mode.

Related: How to Start a Business, Even When You’re Afraid: Gary Vee

As someone who helped power a founder’s mission forward over a decade ago — and is still supporting that mission today — I know from firsthand experience just how important a role my colleagues and I have played in that mission coming to fruition. And I know our founder would say the same thing and tell you he doesn’t regret having stepped aside in some areas.

In fact, he’d be the first to tell you that you can’t rely on a founder to create a corporate culture on their own — they can implement and lead by example, but managers and mid-level team members are the only ones who can help foster it at a broader level. Plus, we can’t ignore that a heavily involved founder also affects workplace culture. Working for the sort of founder who is forever in “founder mode” can lead to feelings of being micromanaged, which can have a tangibly negative impact. Though on a positive and personal note, I’ve taken great motivation and purpose in working very closely with a founder for the last 12 years — there is nobody quite like our CEO to push the business forward.

However, when a founder empowers deputies to run and grow a business, they create an involved workforce and a culture that thrives, while the founder gets to focus on the overarching goals. Think about it this way: When a commander entrusts their generals with the day-to-day, they not only foster loyalty and sharpen their crew’s efficiency, but the commander can strategize on the bigger picture. Like ancient generals relying on captains to lead battalions, victory depends not just on vision but on strong leadership at every level.

And even then, scalability remains important. Not every business is meant to grow beyond founder mode to a different mode. For example, if a business only sells smartphones, its growth potential is limited, and the founder can maintain complete control. The expertise required to run that type of business stays fairly consistent. But if the business expands into other areas (apps, software, cars, TVs), it will need to bring in people with skills beyond the founder’s expertise.

Similarly, evolving as a leader doesn’t mean founders need to retreat entirely into the background and operate in anonymity. Striking the right balance is important — something Elon Musk exemplifies well. He maintains the aura of a founder while delegating day-to-day operations to leaders who oversee each division. Ultimately, Musk is still the visionary and overall leader of his companies.

The truth is founders will always have some part of them in founder mode — it’s a mindset shaped by years of struggle, wins, losses and lessons. It’s not something you can easily outgrow; some even say it’s something you’re born with. However, founders must evolve into fully functional CEOs instead of stretching themselves too thin, which ultimately benefits no one. While some make this transition naturally and others struggle, they should know when, what and how to delegate effectively for the greater good.