I’m a very liberal guy (who sits inside a very conservative wall – i.e., new “liberal” ideas have to to fight their way in). And I’m getting a lot of what seem like hysterical articles forwarded to me about “Google’s war on net neutrality”. It reminds me of the lead-up to the war in Iraq, which smelled odd right from the start.

So far, I’m just not buying it – my thinking is really more along the lines of what Wayne Rash says in the article you linked to.

Curious whether you have any follow-up thoughts?

- Phil

as the ceo of a just launched startup (www.world4brains.com), I was most interested in hearing Ray Rothrock’s answers to your questions, especially the part “On Entrepreneurs and Startups”.

Thank you very much for sharing & best from downunder,
Arne

At a macro level, I personally do not believe that the better investors ever want to “shaft” the founders and CEO.

Yet having the best people in all roles in a company is key to a company’s ongoing success. And sometimes companies outgrow the abilities and skills of founders or CEOs. Just as they might need to replace anyone else in a company. Ideally in the case of founders, there are roles for them that can add value long term. For example, David Filo co-founded Yahoo and while never the CEO, he has continued to have a role in the company that adds value to that which he has exceptional skills, i.e. Yahoo’s overall technical direction.

It’s also important to remember that one of the things that investors prefer never to do is to replace a founder or CEO because it often adds risk and complicates things.

Ultimately, the decision about a founder or CEO should be about an upfront understanding of what the goals and objective measures for success are and if the founder or CEO is delivering the results, then a well structured board would not likely replace the person.

With regard to the question of rights of investors, typically, investors do not have a special right to fire a founder of CEO as it’s a board decision, thus the importance of a well structured board. Sometimes as part of a financing, replacing the founder as a CEO will be part of the Terms. Then it is something that each founder has to decide to accept or not.

I suggest, if you have not yet had a chance, to read more in the two posts “A few golden rules for a great Board relationship”
and “Control Freaks Are Us” which are linked up above.

At what point does an investor with less than controlling interest have the rights to turf founders?

And you’re so right that once the Board is established, implementing a good plan and having great, open, timely communications is key to maintaining solid Board relationships and dynamics.

After hearing the gripes of those that are not paying anything, and their demands that the richest share his $7 savings, the richest person quits the dining group.

The next time they all go out, there is only 9 of them. They enjoy their dinner and when the bill comes they each pay their share.

BUT…their total only comes to $28 and the bill is now for $72. They end up washing dishes for a month.

Beware…if you constantly keep taxing the rich more, they may just leave and take their business elsewhere (and all the employees that their business employs!), leaving you to mop up the mess.