????正所謂“外來的和尚會念經”，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；一位預言家可能在外地聲名遠播，但在他的老家卻恐怕很少有人相信他的話。同理，科技公司的創始人也很難讓別人相信，在公司的成長歷程中，他們應該一直坐著公司的頭把交椅。

????好在現在關于科技公司創始人是否應另選賢才就任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始人并不是領導企業的合適人選，原因很簡單——就因為他是創始人。

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

????23歲那年，我創立了自己的公司，我還沒有哈佛MBA的文憑，也并不渴望成為企業家。那時我剛剛大學畢業不久，還是一名現場系統工程師，每日奔波勞碌，總是要開車從一個客戶站點趕往下一個客戶站點，在路上白白耗費了大量寶貴時間，因此十分苦悶。于是我開發了一款可以讓我對客戶進行遠程支持的軟件，然后在2003年創立了一家公司。

????說我當時毫無經驗也并不過分。在我創業之初，我自己同時管著產品研發、財務、人力資源和市場營銷。我對這些領域都不熟悉，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。現在公司做大了，盡管我也面臨著許多顯著不同的挑戰，但我堅信，作為公司的創始人和CEO，與公司一起成長，是有其價值所在的。

????不過，許多公司都有一種用“職業CEO”來取代創始CEO的傾向，這種作風現在仍然有大量擁躉。2009年馬克?安德森和本?霍洛維茨曾經宣稱，自從他們創立自己的風投機構以來，他們一直非常青睞創始人兼任CEO的公司。正因為人們普遍傾向于支持用職業CEO取代創始CEO，因此他們這番“離經叛道”的言論立時掀起了軒然大波。

????他們指出：“盡管并非所有的創始人都能成為杰出的CEO，但大多數科技界的杰出公司都在創始人的領導下運營了很長一段時間，往往長達數十年，而且我們相信這種模式還會持續下去。我們不能保證創始人一定可以成為卓越的CEO，但我們可以幫助創始人培養CEO的必要技能，充分激發他的領導潛能。”

????安德森和霍洛維茨的立場與主流觀點大相徑庭，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年發表于《哈佛商業評論》（Harvard Business Review）上的一項研究，該研究對比了創始人領導的公司和非創始人領導的公司的股市收益率。然后文章寫道：

????在三年期內，由創始人領導的公司的市場調整收益率為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%……

????事實上，創始CEO的退位讓賢，無論是自愿也好，非自愿也罷，都對公司的財務業績造成了很壞的影響，導致許多已經退下來的創始CEO不得不重新就任CEO，以挽救或振興他們親手創辦的企業。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?尤勒維什和Second Life公司的菲利浦?羅斯戴爾。

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

????埃里克?施密特當政期間，谷歌完成了華麗轉型。人們不禁要問，如果谷歌背后的風投機構當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始人拉里?佩奇還是CEO的話，那么施密特在總裁和首席運營官的位置上，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。有人懷疑他領導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Facebook在正確的時機、正確的軌道上發展，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？

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

????谷歌卻恰好跟Facebook相反：管理型人才手握權柄，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，他們就該去雇一個總裁或COO。

????我知道當談到創始CEO和“職業CEO”孰優孰劣時，我可能帶有一點偏見。不過我從不認為，我之所以應該當CEO，原因僅僅因為我是這個公司的創立者。我一直努力工作，向我的員工和投資方證明我是領導公司的正確人選。這并不是一條總是好走的路。

????我的公司創立幾年后，我們一度想要擴大公司產品線，不過我們馬上意識到，如果我們更專注于一個細化的領域，那么我們很可能獲得更大的成功。我們避免了擴張可能帶來的損失，事實證明，這對公司來說是正確之舉。作為創始人，我不想看見我親手打造的公司因為企圖過快地走多樣化戰略而承受盲目擴張的惡果。然而如果是一位新CEO的話，他可能會繼續擴張，來證明他有向新市場進行擴張的能力。

????創始人不僅應該一開始就當CEO，也應該一直留任CEO，除非事實清楚地擺在眼前，人人都能看出他絕對無法帶領公司繼續發展。如果創始CEO缺乏運營技能——就像當年的我一樣，那么公司就該雇傭一位非常強力的首席財務官（CFO）或運營經理，甚至不妨雇傭一位總裁或首席運營官。如果創始CEO需要輔導——也像當年的我一樣，那么董事會或者公司自身應該提供這種輔導。一家企業就是一個鮮活的有機體，創始人就是它生命的一個關鍵部分。

????本文作者Joel Bomgar是Bomgar Corporation公司的創始人兼CEO，該公司是一家遠程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.