????哈佛商學院（Harvard Business School）副教授諾阿姆?瓦瑟曼認為，公司創始人可分為兩類。“國王”型的創始人，希望建立自己的帝國并改變世界；“富有型”的創始人則希望在獲得財務收益的同時，發揮公司的成長潛力。

????在史蒂夫?喬布斯的領導下，蘋果公司（Apple）成長為行業巨人，同時喬布斯仍然掌管著公司的生殺大權。許多企業家每看到這類成功故事，就想當然地認為，公司創始人既當國王又腰纏萬貫，也并非不可能。然而事實上，“99%的公司創始人在某個時刻都將面臨‘二選一’的抉擇。”瓦瑟曼表示。“但愿他們能夠選擇與自己目標和雄心更為一致的方向。”

????瓦瑟曼指出，理解并明確你最認可哪一類創始人，以更好地把握企業家成長歷程中有可能面臨的關鍵抉擇，這一點至關重要。國王型創始人不僅很難與他人分享對公司的控制權，而且當現實與其愿景不一致時，他們也會表現得固執己見。富有型創始人奮斗的動機是獲得作為企業家的現實回報，不管這回報是金錢還是自由，而且在公司成長及變化的過程中，他們更可能分享對公司的控制權。

????事實上，與喬布斯相比，蘋果公司聯合創始人史蒂夫?沃茲尼亞克是更典型的國王型創始人，他的夢想就是要為普通大眾提供強大的計算能力。蘋果上市之前，他將自己的股份以低于市場的價格，賣給了他認為應當在財務上受到獎賞的核心早期員工，瓦瑟曼介紹說。

????“每個企業家都認為自己與眾不同，獨一無二。”他表示。“但是，這些形形色色的人從來都會面臨相同的問題，有可能犯相同的錯誤。”

????賽格威公司（Segway）創始人迪恩?卡門和耐克公司（Nike）創始人菲爾?奈特也屬于典型的國王型創始人。這兩位一門心思地要保持對公司的掌控權，以至于公司坐失成長或者資本擴充的良機。卡門堅信，賽格威將徹底顛覆交通運輸業，因而不顧一切地堅持讓員工保守秘密，在正式上市前不能在市場上試銷賽格威汽車。上世紀80年代，奈特曾公開嘲笑彼時剛剛興起的有氧運動趨勢，并且堅持認為，耐克應該繼續專門為精英運動員設計產品。如此剛愎自用的代價是，眼睜睜地看著銳步（Reebok）由于銷售女款運動鞋而取代耐克成為行業王者。

????與此相反，教育社交網絡Grockit的創始人法布德?尼維卻甘愿辭去首席執行官的職務，并招募能帶領公司再上一個臺階的人擔當此職。“能夠聘任到具備相當才干的人的唯一辦法，就是我辭去首席執行官的工作。”尼維表示。“如果你尚未做好準備，明白有一天你的公司會取得巨大成功，而你會感覺力不從心，無法繼續勝任領導職務，那你不免有些短視或者窄視了。”

????無論國王型模式還是富有型模式都并非最佳，瓦瑟曼指出。企業家應該始終如一地堅持自己的奮斗目標。比如說，如果讓國王型企業家放棄對公司的控制權，再眼看著公司在別人的領導下，身價飛漲至幾十億美元，成為婦孺皆知的成功傳奇，然而到頭來，其最初的愿景并未實現，那他們也不大可能對最終結果感到心滿意足。

????1992年，凱利?坎貝爾在美國北卡羅萊納州的羅利創建了軟件開發公司Interface Technologies Inc。他的夢想是要用設計得美輪美奐的技術去改變世界。然而自那時起，他開始認識到，在這個創新代表一切的行業，分享控制權是確保公司生存和發展的根本。

????“我經過了多年才完成這一轉變，也就是你不必控制每件事，相反，你可以把控制權交給內部員工或者客戶。”坎貝爾表示。“其實這與技術沒多大關系，或者說跟我們用技術做事的能力關系也不大，關鍵是你如何應用技術解決具體問題，幫助客戶實現需求。經歷過這種轉變之后，我不再是掌控欲十足的人了。”

????在互聯網繁榮時期，坎貝爾的同時代人紛紛創建企業，然后再將它們以幾百萬美元的高價出手。而他卻更愿意建立一家企業，并讓這家企業，無論是在繁榮期還是即將來臨的衰敗期，都不停止茁壯成長。“上世紀90年代末，人們嘲笑我經營的是家生活方式企業。”他表示：“然而兩三年后，事情就沒那么可笑了。”

????大衛?威韋羅曾在瓦瑟曼的課上學過創始人模式理論，但他不確定自己到底屬于國王型還是富有型。2009年，他創建了RentJuice公司，為的是要實現自己的愿景：幫助房地產經紀人與地產管理專業人士實現高效互連。

????“我對自己的公司充滿了感情，無法割舍。從這個角度說，我永遠也不會把它賣掉。”威韋羅表示。盡管如此，他仍然四處尋找風險資本支持，以有足夠的資源去實現自己的愿景。而且，他也熱情歡迎投資者貢獻各自的經驗和信息。

????如果硬要選擇的話，他說他更愿意將自己歸入國王型。“大概由于我獨自推銷這款產品時間過久的緣故，我沒有將自己視為需要分裂的單細胞組織。”威韋羅表示：“我需要調整自己的定位，當個雇傭者、指導者以及補償者。這于我而言可是個巨大的轉變。如果我能早點認識并完成這一轉變的話，也許我們公司還能成長得更快。”

????譯者：大海

????Company founders fall into two categories, according to Noam Wasserman, an associate professor at Harvard Business School. The "king" wants to build an empire and change the world, while a "rich" founder is motivated by financial gains and unleashing a company's growth potential.

????Many entrepreneurs look at company founders like Apple's (AAPL) Steve Jobs -- who managed to grow his company into a behemoth while also maintaining control -- and assume it's possible to be both a king and rich. In reality, "99% of those founders are going to be facing, at some point, a choice between one and the other," Wasserman says. "Hopefully they're picking the fork in the road that is much more consistent with what their goals and aspirations are."

????It's important to understand what type you identify with most to navigate the key decisions that will arise during any entrepreneurial venture, Wasserman says. King founders find it difficult to share control and can be very stubborn when facts on the ground challenge their vision. Rich founders are motivated by the practical rewards of entrepreneurship, whether it's money or freedom, and are more likely to share control as their venture grows and changes.

????In fact, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak is a better example than Jobs of a king, motivated by a dream of bringing computing power to the masses. When Apple was about to go public, he sold his own shares below-market to the key early employees he thought should be rewarded financially, Wasserman says.

????"Every entrepreneur thinks they're unique and idiosyncratic," he says. "Those very diverse people are consistently facing the same issues and same potential missteps."

????Segway founder Dean Kamen and Nike (NKE) founder Phil Knight are other examples of kings, so intent on maintaining control of the company that they missed out on growth opportunities or access to capital. Kamen's conviction that the Segway would revolutionize the transportation industry made him fanatical about secrecy, limiting his staff's ability to test market the device before its release. Knight scoffed at the 1980s aerobics trend and kept Nike focused on designing for elite athletes, only to see Reebok overtake his company by selling sneakers to women.

????By contrast, Farbood Nivi, founder of educational social network Grockit, agreed to step aside as CEO and recruit an executive who could take the company to the next level. "The only way to get someone of high enough caliber was to give away the CEO job," Nivi says. "If you're not set up to think that your company is going to be so successful that it's going to outperform you, you've got your sights set the wrong way."

????Neither the king nor rich model is best, Wasserman says. Entrepreneurs should act consistently with their motivations. King entrepreneurs, for instance, would likely be less satisfied with the outcome if they gave up control and saw the company become a multi-billion dollar success story without them -- and without fulfilling their vision.

????In 1992 when Kelly Campbell started Interface Technologies Inc., a software development company in Raleigh, North Carolina, his dream was to change the world with beautifully designed technology. Since then, he's come to see that sharing control is essential for a company in such a creative industry.

????"That's been a shift for me over the years, that you don't have to have control over everything, that you can involve people internally and customers," Campbell says. "It's not so much about the technology or our ability to do things with technology that really matters. It's about how you can apply it to solving a specific problem and getting things done for people. That's sort of a shift into a less controlling position."

????During the Internet boom, Campbell's contemporaries launched businesses and sold them for multi-million dollar paychecks; he was content to build an enterprise that would thrive during the boom and busts to come. "In the late 90's I got laughed at for being a lifestyle business," he says. "A couple of years later, it wasn't so funny."

????David Vivero isn't sure whether he falls into the king or rich model, which he studied in Wasserman's class. He launched RentJuice in 2009 to fulfill his vision of efficiently connecting real estate brokers and property management professionals.

????"There's an emotional attachment and connection to my business. I would never sell it at this point," Vivero says. Still, he sought venture capital financing to have enough resources to execute his vision, and he welcomes the experience and input of his investors.

????When pushed, he says that he likely falls into the king model. "I probably sold the product on my own too long instead of thinking of myself as this single cell organization that needs to split," Vivero says. "I needed to change my position to being a hirer and mentor and compensator. That was a big transition for me. We probably would've had a faster growing enterprise if I had done that sooner."