????正所謂“外來的和尚會(huì)念經(jīng)”，父母的建議無論怎樣頭頭是道，也不如一位新朋友的建議更有說服力；一位預(yù)言家可能在外地聲名遠(yuǎn)播，但在他的老家卻恐怕很少有人相信他的話。同理，科技公司的創(chuàng)始人也很難讓別人相信，在公司的成長歷程中，他們應(yīng)該一直坐著公司的頭把交椅。

????好在現(xiàn)在關(guān)于科技公司創(chuàng)始人是否應(yīng)另選賢才就任CEO的話題又重新熱了起來。多年以來，人們普遍覺得科技公司的創(chuàng)始人并不是領(lǐng)導(dǎo)企業(yè)的合適人選，原因很簡單——就因?yàn)樗莿?chuàng)始人。

????我本人就是一家公司的創(chuàng)始CEO，盡管許多人覺得科技公司的創(chuàng)始人往往不具備領(lǐng)導(dǎo)公司的才能，但我認(rèn)為這種成見是全然偏頗的。創(chuàng)始人是最初構(gòu)思出了公司理念的人，除了他之外，還有誰能更好地領(lǐng)導(dǎo)公司經(jīng)過不同的成長階段呢？

????23歲那年，我創(chuàng)立了自己的公司，我還沒有哈佛MBA的文憑，也并不渴望成為企業(yè)家。那時(shí)我剛剛大學(xué)畢業(yè)不久，還是一名現(xiàn)場系統(tǒng)工程師，每日奔波勞碌，總是要開車從一個(gè)客戶站點(diǎn)趕往下一個(gè)客戶站點(diǎn)，在路上白白耗費(fèi)了大量寶貴時(shí)間，因此十分苦悶。于是我開發(fā)了一款可以讓我對客戶進(jìn)行遠(yuǎn)程支持的軟件，然后在2003年創(chuàng)立了一家公司。

????說我當(dāng)時(shí)毫無經(jīng)驗(yàn)也并不過分。在我創(chuàng)業(yè)之初，我自己同時(shí)管著產(chǎn)品研發(fā)、財(cái)務(wù)、人力資源和市場營銷。我對這些領(lǐng)域都不熟悉，急需有人幫我指明方向，于是我向許多資源尋求幫助。不過在公司成長的過程中，我也成長起來了?，F(xiàn)在公司做大了，盡管我也面臨著許多顯著不同的挑戰(zhàn)，但我堅(jiān)信，作為公司的創(chuàng)始人和CEO，與公司一起成長，是有其價(jià)值所在的。

????不過，許多公司都有一種用“職業(yè)CEO”來取代創(chuàng)始CEO的傾向，這種作風(fēng)現(xiàn)在仍然有大量擁躉。2009年馬克?安德森和本?霍洛維茨曾經(jīng)宣稱，自從他們創(chuàng)立自己的風(fēng)投機(jī)構(gòu)以來，他們一直非常青睞創(chuàng)始人兼任CEO的公司。正因?yàn)槿藗兤毡閮A向于支持用職業(yè)CEO取代創(chuàng)始CEO，因此他們這番“離經(jīng)叛道”的言論立時(shí)掀起了軒然大波。

????他們指出：“盡管并非所有的創(chuàng)始人都能成為杰出的CEO，但大多數(shù)科技界的杰出公司都在創(chuàng)始人的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下運(yùn)營了很長一段時(shí)間，往往長達(dá)數(shù)十年，而且我們相信這種模式還會(huì)持續(xù)下去。我們不能保證創(chuàng)始人一定可以成為卓越的CEO，但我們可以幫助創(chuàng)始人培養(yǎng)CEO的必要技能，充分激發(fā)他的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)潛能?！?/p>

????安德森和霍洛維茨的立場與主流觀點(diǎn)大相徑庭，就連他們自己也覺得有必要重新解釋一遍他們的邏輯，于是2010年他們就此問題寫了一篇博文。

????這篇文章首先引用了馬丁?L?馬頓斯2005年發(fā)表于《哈佛商業(yè)評(píng)論》（Harvard Business Review）上的一項(xiàng)研究，該研究對比了創(chuàng)始人領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的公司和非創(chuàng)始人領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的公司的股市收益率。然后文章寫道：

????在三年期內(nèi)，由創(chuàng)始人領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的公司的市場調(diào)整收益率為12%，生存率為73%；而對于雇傭了新CEO的公司來說，他們的收益率為-26%，存活率也僅為60%……

????事實(shí)上，創(chuàng)始CEO的退位讓賢，無論是自愿也好，非自愿也罷，都對公司的財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績造成了很壞的影響，導(dǎo)致許多已經(jīng)退下來的創(chuàng)始CEO不得不重新就任CEO，以挽救或振興他們親手創(chuàng)辦的企業(yè)。其中也不乏大公司的身影，例如谷歌（Google）的拉里?佩奇、戴爾（Dell）的邁克爾?戴爾、星巴克（Starbucks）的霍華德?舒爾茨、嘉信理財(cái)公司（Schwab）的查爾斯?施瓦布、美國著名快餐品牌奎茲諾斯（Quiznos）的理查德?謝登、社交網(wǎng)站LinkedIn的里德?霍夫曼、電影院線Alamo Drafthouse的蒂姆?里格、沃尼奇公司（Vonage）的杰弗里?斯特朗，以及這股潮流的領(lǐng)頭羊：蘋果（Apple）的史蒂夫?喬布斯。小公司的例子也有很多，比如Etsy公司的羅布?卡林、OpenDNS公司的大衛(wèi)?尤勒維什和Second Life公司的菲利浦?羅斯戴爾。

????不過，再度出山的創(chuàng)始CEO也并非總能力挽狂瀾，有時(shí)候公司已經(jīng)積重難返了[例如雅虎（Yahoo）和Myspace]。不過創(chuàng)始CEO的再度出山已經(jīng)成了一種趨勢，這不禁使我們提出這樣一個(gè)問題：如果創(chuàng)始CEO一開始就沒有退位讓賢，或是被“逼宮”下臺(tái)，事情會(huì)不會(huì)朝著不同的方向發(fā)展？

????埃里克?施密特當(dāng)政期間，谷歌完成了華麗轉(zhuǎn)型。人們不禁要問，如果谷歌背后的風(fēng)投機(jī)構(gòu)當(dāng)初沒有逼迫谷歌雇傭一位外來CEO的話，也就是說如果谷歌創(chuàng)始人拉里?佩奇還是CEO的話，那么施密特在總裁和首席運(yùn)營官的位置上，是否也可以把他在谷歌的諸般豐功偉績做得一樣好？我認(rèn)為答案是肯定的。

????不妨看看Facebook的馬克?扎克伯格。有人懷疑他領(lǐng)導(dǎo)Facebook的能力嗎？如果說Facebook的COO謝爾樂?桑德伯格能在COO的位子上帶領(lǐng)Facebook在正確的時(shí)機(jī)、正確的軌道上發(fā)展，那么施密特是否真的非要掛著CEO的頭銜，才能在谷歌做到同樣的事情？

????事實(shí)是谷歌和Facebook都成功保證了企業(yè)列車的運(yùn)行，但是Facebook讓扎克伯格這個(gè)夢想家坐了頭把交椅，因此它也擁有了獨(dú)特的優(yōu)勢。而且這位夢想家也不受谷歌的“三頭統(tǒng)治”掣肘（所謂“三頭統(tǒng)治”，是指谷歌的大事都是由埃里克?施密特、拉里?佩奇和另一位創(chuàng)始人謝爾蓋?布林三人共同研究決定——譯注）。企業(yè)之所以存在“總裁”和“COO”的頭銜，是考慮到了高管層的運(yùn)營能力。如果你的企業(yè)處于高速發(fā)展模式，這一點(diǎn)非常重要。

????谷歌卻恰好跟Facebook相反：管理型人才手握權(quán)柄，夢想家卻郁郁不得志。幸好隨著拉里?佩奇重任CEO，這種情況已經(jīng)被糾正過來了。如果谷歌需要一位總裁或COO的話，他們就該去雇一個(gè)總裁或COO。

????我知道當(dāng)談到創(chuàng)始CEO和“職業(yè)CEO”孰優(yōu)孰劣時(shí)，我可能帶有一點(diǎn)偏見。不過我從不認(rèn)為，我之所以應(yīng)該當(dāng)CEO，原因僅僅因?yàn)槲沂沁@個(gè)公司的創(chuàng)立者。我一直努力工作，向我的員工和投資方證明我是領(lǐng)導(dǎo)公司的正確人選。這并不是一條總是好走的路。

????我的公司創(chuàng)立幾年后，我們一度想要擴(kuò)大公司產(chǎn)品線，不過我們馬上意識(shí)到，如果我們更專注于一個(gè)細(xì)化的領(lǐng)域，那么我們很可能獲得更大的成功。我們避免了擴(kuò)張可能帶來的損失，事實(shí)證明，這對公司來說是正確之舉。作為創(chuàng)始人，我不想看見我親手打造的公司因?yàn)槠髨D過快地走多樣化戰(zhàn)略而承受盲目擴(kuò)張的惡果。然而如果是一位新CEO的話，他可能會(huì)繼續(xù)擴(kuò)張，來證明他有向新市場進(jìn)行擴(kuò)張的能力。

????創(chuàng)始人不僅應(yīng)該一開始就當(dāng)CEO，也應(yīng)該一直留任CEO，除非事實(shí)清楚地?cái)[在眼前，人人都能看出他絕對無法帶領(lǐng)公司繼續(xù)發(fā)展。如果創(chuàng)始CEO缺乏運(yùn)營技能——就像當(dāng)年的我一樣，那么公司就該雇傭一位非常強(qiáng)力的首席財(cái)務(wù)官（CFO）或運(yùn)營經(jīng)理，甚至不妨雇傭一位總裁或首席運(yùn)營官。如果創(chuàng)始CEO需要輔導(dǎo)——也像當(dāng)年的我一樣，那么董事會(huì)或者公司自身應(yīng)該提供這種輔導(dǎo)。一家企業(yè)就是一個(gè)鮮活的有機(jī)體，創(chuàng)始人就是它生命的一個(gè)關(guān)鍵部分。

????本文作者Joel Bomgar是Bomgar Corporation公司的創(chuàng)始人兼CEO，該公司是一家遠(yuǎn)程IT支持解決方案提供商。

????譯者：樸成奎

????In the same way that a parent's advice never sounds quite as convincing as a new friend's, and a prophet is hardly ever as believable in his hometown as he is abroad, tech founders have had a hard time making the case that they should, in fact, keep the top seat as their companies mature.

????But thankfully, the conversation over whether a technology company's founder should be the CEO is back on the table. For years, there was a pervasive assumption that a founder was somehow unfit to lead his or her organization by the sheer fact that he or she was the founder.

????As a founder CEO myself, I find the suggestion that a founder is somehow ill-equipped to lead a company to be entirely misguided. Who better than the individual who originally conceived of a company to guide the organization through its various stages of maturity?

????When I launched my company at 23, I wasn't a Harvard MBA with a burning desire to become an entrepreneur. I was a recent college graduate and a field systems engineer, frustrated by the amount of time I spent driving from one client site to the next. So I developed software that allowed me to do remote support, and started a company in 2003.

????To say I was inexperienced would be an understatement. When I first started out, I found myself in charge of product development, finance, human resources, and marketing. I needed help navigating these unfamiliar environments, and I sought it out from a variety of sources. But as the company grew, so did I. And while I face significantly different challenges as the head of what is now a larger company, I firmly believe that there is value in growing with a company as its founder and CEO.

????Unfortunately, the tendency to replace founder CEOs with "professional CEOs" still has a strong following. If it didn't, then Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz wouldn't have gotten so much flack for insisting from the outset of their venture capital firm that they had a strong preference for the founder to be CEO in 2009. They stated:

????Not all founders can become great CEOs, but most of the great companies in our industry were run by a founder for a long period of time, often decades, and we believe that pattern will continue. We cannot guarantee that a founder can be a great CEO, but we can help that founder develop the skills necessary to reach his or her full CEO potential.

????Andreessen and Horowitz's position was so counter to the prevailing wisdom that they felt the need to write a blog post in 2010 explaining their logic again.

????Their preference was preceded by a 2005 study of stock market returns for founder-led vs. non-founder-led companies by Martin L. Martens, which was featured in Harvard Business Review. The article states:

????Founder-led companies had a market-adjusted return of 12% over the course of three years and a survival rate of 73%, compared with a return of -26% and a survival rate of 60% for firms that hired a new CEO…

????In fact, financial results in the wake of founders stepping aside -- voluntarily or involuntarily -- have been so bad that they caused many founders to return to their companies as CEOs to try to save (or reinvigorate) the companies they established. Large company examples of this trend include Larry Page at Google (GOOG), Michael Dell at Dell (DELL), Howard Schultz at Starbucks (SBUX), Charles Schwab at Schwab (SCHW), Richard Schaden at Quiznos, Reid Hoffman at LinkedIn, Tim League at Alamo Drafthouse, Jeffrey Citron at Vonage (VG), and the pioneer of the trend: Steve Jobs at Apple (AAPL). Small-company examples abound as well, such as Rob Kalin at Etsy, David Ulevitch at OpenDNS, and Philip Rosedale at Second Life.

????To be sure, the founder-returning-as-CEO medicine doesn't always do the trick. Sometimes the patient is too far gone (i.e. Yahoo (YHOO) and MySpace). But the trend is strong enough to raise the question of whether things might have been different had the founder not stepped down (or been forced aside) in the first place.

????Eric Schmidt's transition (or ejection) at Google raises the question of whether Google would have been even more successful had their VCs not forced them to hire an outside CEO. Could Eric Schmidt have accomplished everything he did at Google as president and COO just as well with Larry Page remaining CEO? I think so.

????Look at Mark Zuckerberg. Is anyone questioning his ability to lead Facebook? If Sheryl Sandberg, as COO of Facebook, can keep the trains running on time over there, did Eric Schmidt really need to be CEO to do the same at Google?

????The reality is that both Google and Facebook successfully kept the trains running, but Facebook has the benefit of a visionary at the top. (A visionary who isn't tied to a "triumvirate" of leadership like at Google.) The titles "president" and "COO" exist to allow for executive-level operational capabilities, which are critical when your company is in hyper-growth mode.

????Google had things upside-down: A manager at the top and a visionary stuck underneath. Thankfully that has now been corrected, with Larry Page returning to the helm. If they need a president/COO, they should hire one -- with that title.

????I'm aware that I may be a bit biased when it comes to founder/CEOs versus "professional CEOS." But I've never assumed that I deserve to be CEO simply because I founded the company. I've worked hard to demonstrate to my staff and investors that I'm the right person to lead my company, and it's not always been a simple road.

????A few years into my company's life, we attempted to expand our product line but quickly realized that we'd achieve more success by keeping things more narrowly focused. We cut our losses on the expansion, which proved to be the right move for the company. As a founder, I didn't want to see the company I'd built struggle under the weight of our own attempt to diversify too quickly. A new CEO may have continued to push forward to prove his or her ability to expand into new markets.

????The founder should start as CEO and remain CEO unless it is blatantly clear to everyone that it absolutely, positively isn't working. If the founder lacks operational expertise -- as I did -- the company should hire a really strong CFO or head of operations, or even a president/COO. If the founder needs coaching -- as I did -- the board or company itself should provide it. A company is a living, breathing organism, and the founder is a key part of its lifeblood.

????Joel Bomgar is the founder and CEO of Bomgar Corporation, a provider of remote IT support solutions.