Leading After the Founder
Founder transitions are among the most emotionally charged and strategically consequential moments in a company’s life cycle. When handled well, they unlock the next phase of growth and maturity; when mishandled, they can destabilize teams, compromise value, and derail momentum. The stakes are high: Founder CEO transitions carry a risk of failure or performance downturn that’s two to three times greater than transitions involving nonfounder CEOs.
Whether PE-backed, public, or private, founder-led companies often confront the same questions as they mature: What happens when the very person who built the company becomes the reason it can’t keep growing? Or wants to step back but the organization isn’t ready to operate without the founder?
Several high-profile examples illustrate the power held by founders. When Steve Jobs returned to Apple in 1997, more than a decade after he had been forced out, he proved that a founder with vision can transform a company, even after years away. At OpenAI, Sam Altman’s brief ousting and dramatic return exposed how central—and complicated—a founder’s influence can be. At Bumble, Whitney Wolfe Herd’s shift to executive chair and her return as CEO spotlighted how remaining in a chair role can preserve a founder’s influence, sometimes blurring the lines of a full transition.
This article offers a practical guide to navigating founder transitions—one that’s relevant to founders, successor CEOs, founder-led companies, and the investors and board members who support these evolutions. Drawing on our extensive advisory experience and proprietary research, dozens of in-depth interviews, and client case studies, we’ll explore when and how to raise the idea of a transition, how to map a founder’s next role, what makes a successor effective, how founders can help the transition succeed, and what critical questions every stakeholder should ask.
Is It Transition Time?
After a deal closes or amid a new growth phase, some founders remain well positioned to lead their companies for the long term. So before thinking about a transition, consider whether the founder should remain as CEO. Companies may find that the most effective course of action is to make no change at all. In that case, your best approach may be to hire new team members who can support the founder and to invest in succession options without forcing an immediate decision.
Consider this example: After selling her business to a private equity company, one founder began preparing for her company’s next chapter by hiring a president and COO as her likely successor and transitioning into a new role as the board chair. These were textbook moves—but she soon felt uncomfortable with them. “I woke up on a Tuesday morning and realized all my friends were at work,” she told us. “I knew I wanted to be back in the business.” Not even 40 years old at the time, she hadn’t decided to leave because she was exhausted or lacked vision; she simply assumed it was what founders did when they sold their businesses. When she changed her mind and chose to remain as CEO, her executive team was relieved, and the business went on to thrive, securing another successful PE round.
What made it work? The founder was self-aware, adaptable, and invested in building a cohesive team. Over time she evolved from being tactical to strategic, focusing on what only she could do: shaping culture and vision. Her reenergized leadership created clarity and cohesion in the company, and her presence was central to its success.
In another case, a founder who had been with his business for more than two decades planned a full exit and initiated an external CEO search. However, amid shifting economic conditions and emerging operational challenges, he started to feel that walking away would be irresponsible. Instead of rushing a transition process, he extended his tenure, creating space to develop an internal successor. His choice to stay the course has preserved stability during a volatile time and given the organization time to get its next chapter right.
These examples reinforce the idea that staying on as CEO can be the right decision, particularly when the founder still has energy, credibility, and alignment with the company’s needs. The key is not clinging to the role out of habit or fear but recommitting to it with purpose, adaptability, and intention.
Put a Plan in Place
When a founder transition is the right choice, there are two common pathways: A founder raises the prospect proactively, or others bring it up. Neither path is simple.
In some cases, the founder acknowledges his own burnout or limitations and signals a readiness to pass the baton. In others, the founder may be the last to see that her style or capabilities are no longer what the business needs to grow or scale. Early signs that it may be time for a transition include a noticeable decline in the founder’s usual drive to innovate or disrupt, a tendency to fall back on old solutions amid new challenges, mounting frustration with the team, and a fading sense of excitement about his role or the company’s future.
From a psychological perspective, the optimal timing for a transition is when a founder recognizes the need for a change but still has the energy to participate actively in succession planning. Founder transitions are most effective when initiated from a position of strength—that is, when the founder can champion a successor with conviction and clarity. By contrast, transitions triggered by a crisis often create cascading challenges: The crisis destabilizes the founder’s identity, and the successor is left managing both organizational dysfunction and cultural fallout.
One founder we worked with had spent years building a healthcare company from scratch and had become an industry icon. But as the company scaled, her involvement in day-to-day management became a bottleneck. Investors and the board took a respectful approach, positioning a transition as an opportunity to elevate her influence. “Maybe it’s time for you to come to this side of the table to govern and protect your investment,” they told her. That framing resonated with her values and plans for her legacy.
By contrast, another founder experienced a sudden health crisis and abruptly exited the business, selling his stake without a succession plan in place. His cofounder dutifully stepped in as interim CEO but lacked the skills to lead at scale. With no prepared successor and a shaky leadership bench, the company faltered. The lead private equity investor said, “We should have intervened before things got so bad that our founder felt he had to step down. While we were a minority partner and couldn’t be top down, there were things we could have done to help stabilize things and be more assertive in sitting down with him side by side to work on a plan.”
The lesson? Founder transitions take time, and avoidance is not a strategy. Even when a founder appears committed to staying, investors and boards should bring up the topic of transition early and revisit it regularly. Waiting for a crisis or a moment of clarity from the founder often results in rushed, reactive decisions. In fact, succession should be a standing item on the agenda from day one, as it is for most boards and CEOs. At first, this might mean helping the founder build a strong and complementary team. Over time, it should involve candid conversations about potential successors and realistic transition timelines, particularly in the context of an eventual exit. Of course, these conversations are often complicated by the founder’s significant ownership stake, which can shift the power dynamic and limit the board’s ability to initiate change, even when a transition is clearly needed. But doing this work isn’t just contingency planning. It’s a core strategy for long-term value creation and cultural continuity.
The Founder’s New Role
Having built their businesses from the ground up, founders don’t want to be sidelined. (See “The Founder’s Final Act,” September–October 2025.) They want their legacies to be honored, and often, they want to retain a meaningful degree of influence and control, even as their day-to-day responsibilities lessen. During transitions, founders’ strong sense of agency can manifest as control or volatility—not out of distrust, but because letting go threatens their identity. The key is identifying a role that aligns with their passions and strengths while also serving the evolving needs of the business.
In the healthcare example above, the founder stepped into the role of board chair and focused on advocacy and research. She continued to represent the company at industry conferences and to back clinical innovation, but she left operations to her successor. With time, feedback, and coaching she ultimately found her footing in a role that preserved her legacy and strengths without constraining the business or undermining her successor’s authority.
Transitions can go sideways when the new role is unclear or symbolic. In one case a founder handpicked his successor and moved into a nonexecutive chair position. The successor had the right credentials, but the founder struggled to let go. He undermined the new CEO, refused to relinquish his office, and remained emotionally entangled. Eventually, the successor threatened legal action to enforce a contractual clause that guaranteed his promotion. The founder was pushed into a hollow chair role that felt demeaning, and the company has since struggled under the weight of an incomplete transition.
The roles of founders—and those of their successors—need to be defined with clarity and intention. Role scorecards, which spell out who is responsible for what business outcomes, can be helpful. So can structured conversations about influence and authority. But even a clear plan can take you only so far. In practice, roles often overlap. That’s why it’s just as important to put systems in place that support the plan: regular check-in cycles, a network of trusted intermediaries, and ongoing forums for feedback and recalibration.
Communication matters too. Once the new role is defined, news of the transition must be framed as the founder’s ultimate act of leadership. Present it as a step forward, not a step back. Be intentional with your language. Phrases like “next chapter” or “expanded impact” signal evolution and continued influence, whereas terms like “stepping down” or “retirement” can feel diminishing to a founder.
Choose the Right Model
A successful transition is designed in such a way that it harnesses the founder’s strengths, fits the business context, and maximizes the evolving relationship between founder and successor. Here are the most common archetypes:
Founder to chairperson.
This path can offer continuity and prestige and allows the founder to continue to command respect and influence. Bill Gates, for example, stepped down as Microsoft’s CEO in 2000 but remained highly involved for years, serving as chairman and chief software architect, with a full-time role until 2006. He hasn’t been involved in day-to-day operations since 2008, but he continued as chairman until 2014 and has served as a strategic adviser to Satya Nadella. However, the chair role rarely aligns with a founder’s core strengths, which tend to involve building, innovating, or executing. This path works best when the founder genuinely wants to serve as an advocate for the company externally and as a strategic guidepost internally. Without a well-defined scorecard and clear boundaries, the role can devolve into a symbolic title that disempowers the founder or undermines the new CEO’s authority.
Founder to strategic adviser or nonexecutive director.
When founders want to remain involved but not in daily operations, this model can preserve institutional knowledge, industry expertise, and cultural continuity. It’s particularly effective when the founder wants to be a sounding board for the CEO rather than a direct decision-maker. For instance, shortly after Salesforce acquired Slack, Slack’s founder and CEO, Stewart Butterfield, left the company, choosing to be involved only as an informal adviser. He remained a respected voice during the transition, offering guidance throughout the integration, but he focused more on his personal life than on board meetings and decision-making. In another case, after moving into a nonexecutive director role, one founder CEO recalled, “I encouraged my successor to make his own decisions. I told him, ‘It’s becoming yours. Own it. I agree with everything you’re doing.’” That kind of endorsement helps cement legitimacy and fosters real independence for the incoming leader.
Founder to functional role.
This path works well when the founder has deep expertise in a specific domain (building products, for example, or guiding scientific or commercial strategy). It lets the founder stay close to what she loves while creating space for the CEO. “The CEO had to have faith I would give up my job and not undermine him,” one founder CEO-turned-CTO told us. “And I had to trust his path. We talked five or six times a day to stay aligned.” Larry Ellison followed this route at Oracle, stepping down as CEO in 2014 to become CTO, remaining deeply involved in product and technology strategy. This setup requires careful management of reporting dynamics, given that the founder now reports to the new CEO. At times, the model can feel performative or politically fraught, undermining the very collaboration it’s meant to support. Setting clear role expectations, ensuring trust between the founder and successor, and proactively aligning on decision rights are essential.
Founder exit.
From a governance standpoint, a full departure is the cleanest option, offering the new CEO full decision-making authority and a new chapter. It can, however, create a cultural and strategic vacuum. This path often appeals to founders who are ready for a new challenge, want to recharge after years of intensity, or feel their personal growth lies elsewhere. In some cases, a clean break is necessary due to strained trust with the board or misalignment with the evolving needs of the business. Regardless of the reason, before the founder exits, the company must plan for cultural continuity and hire or promote a credible successor who can carry the company forward with confidence. When feasible, building in overlap between the two leaders can be advantageous.
No matter what form your transition takes, remember that roles often shift over time. Founders change their minds. Emotions evolve. Business needs shift. So don’t treat the new structure as fixed. Treat it as a living agreement and revisit as needed.
How to Succeed a Founder
Stepping into a founder’s shoes is hard—and unlike any other CEO transition. Founders are often emotionally intertwined with their company’s identity, deeply trusted by the team, and hesitant to fully step back. As a result, successors face a unique mix of external pressure and internal doubt. Here’s what they need to succeed, and how founders can smooth the path.
Low ego, high confidence.
Successors need quiet self-assurance. They should be confident in their capabilities without needing to prove themselves too quickly. Many fear being seen as a placeholder or a safe bet, and that can trigger overcompensation: trying too hard to impress or distancing themselves from the founder’s legacy. The best successors focus on building trust over time and making thoughtful moves, not loud ones. Founders can help by offering public and private endorsement early and often. A sincere show of trust helps rewire the successor’s threat-detection system, allowing them to focus more confidently on leading.
Cultural empathy.
Nonfounder CEOs often prioritize systems and performance, but it’s equally important that they immerse themselves in the company’s culture. Rituals, unwritten rules, and shared mythology carry weight successors may not recognize. Founders should help decode the significance behind key traditions and symbols, often created unconsciously. Explaining the company’s cultural DNA enables successors to preserve meaning while evolving form.
Stakeholder savviness.
Successors must navigate multiple power centers: the founder, the board, and the team. Board meetings can become referenda on their legitimacy, resulting in hypervigilant decision-making and successors who second-guess themselves instead of leading decisively. To help, founders can humanize the CEO role by sharing their own early stumbles with successors and reminding them that boldness and sustainability often need to be balanced.
Complementary, relevant strengths.
Successors shouldn’t just complement the founder; they should bring specifically what the company needs at this point. Often that includes more structure, discipline, or scaling know-how, but the key is to ensure everyone in the room agrees these changes are a clear and timely upgrade. The right successor fills the gaps for this growth phase without trying to replicate what makes the founder special. One CEO successor shared how he and the founder intentionally leaned into their differences. “We knew we had complementary styles,” he told us. “He’s an entrepreneur who loves technology, and I can help him bring 150 people along and create the process behind it. If I were an engineer, we wouldn’t need each other.” Founders can help by explicitly naming and elevating the successor’s strengths, especially those that are unfamiliar to the team.
Respectful change leadership.
Successors must discern what to preserve and what to evolve, introducing change gradually without alienating those who built the business. Founders can support their successors by affirming change is a sign of strength, not betrayal, and helping frame evolution as a part of the company’s growth story.
Emotional resilience.
Successors often inherit the pressures of leadership without the camaraderie that founders had established. The result can be early, intense isolation. The ability to withstand that loneliness and seek out trusted support is critical to staying grounded and effective. Founders can help by offering occasional check-ins and listening, as opposed to advising. A founder’s empathy can be a quiet but powerful anchor for the successor.
Four Big Mistakes
Too often, incoming CEOs underestimate the complexity of succeeding a founder. They assume the CEO title automatically confers authority. It doesn’t. In making that misjudgment, successors can sabotage an otherwise promising transition. Here are four of the most common (and costly) mistakes we see successors make and how to avoid them.
Declaring a clean slate too soon.
Some successors arrive with a mandate to “professionalize,” which often means they plan to discard legacy systems, shift culture, or replace loyal lieutenants. But founder-led companies often thrive on informal processes, symbolic rituals, and organized chaos. Moving too quickly risks eroding the trust and energy that fueled early success. Before asking “What should I change?” ask “What should I preserve?” Successors should spend their first 90 to 120 days listening, observing, and decoding the unwritten rules. They should shadow the founder, seek input from long-tenured team members, and understand the culture’s operating code before rewriting it. Introducing changes in stages can help minimize shock.
Underestimating the founder’s continuing influence.
Even without a formal title, founders can still exert considerable cultural authority and emotional power. Dell Technologies is a telling example. The company’s founder, Michael Dell, stepped down as CEO in 2004, appointing then-president Kevin Rollins as his successor while retaining the role of chairman. Just three years later, after a period of company underperformance, Dell returned as CEO and has remained in the role ever since. His enduring presence has shaped the company’s most pivotal moves, from taking it private in 2013 to bringing it public again in 2018. Successors should ask, “What kind of influence will the founder have post-transition? Who truly holds power in the organization?” They should secure the founder’s blessing both publicly and privately and identify founder loyalists who can act as transition champions and cultural carriers.
Failing to engage the founder as a strategic ally.
Many successors treat the transition as a purely operational shift, overlooking the emotional and relational dynamics at play. For most founders, the company is a deeply personal reflection of their identity and life’s work. When that’s not acknowledged, resistance is almost guaranteed. Some successors pull away from the founder too quickly to assert independence or avoid conflict. Others feign alignment, which can backfire when hard decisions must be made. Instead, successors should ask, “Does the founder truly trust me to lead? Do I admire and respect this person enough to build something together? How can I earn and sustain the founder’s trust over time?” The most successful transitions integrate the founder’s legacy and institutional knowledge into the new leadership narrative and forge a relationship built on mutual respect.
Overlooking founder idiosyncrasies.
What looks like a quirk—maybe a fixation on a specific client or an aversion to certain metrics—may in fact reflect a deeper cultural belief. Successors should ask, “What do the founder’s habits or preferences actually represent?” Before writing off legacy behaviors, they need to take time to understand the meaning behind them.
What Success and Failure Look Like
Internal successors can thrive with the right support, although the selection process itself is critical, especially in founder-led businesses, where cultural alignment matters just as much as technical capability. In one financial services company, the founder was an icon in the industry. His warmth and humility had been essential to the firm’s success, particularly in acquiring mom-and-pop brokerages, where trust and values mattered more than spreadsheets.
We were brought in to assess candidates for a COO role at the company, with the founder’s succession in mind. One finalist was a high-profile strategic operator with a strong pedigree, but his brash style and ego would have introduced significant cultural risk. Instead, we recommended a quieter leader with less of an ego, whose strengths complemented the founder’s; he was steady and disciplined and had a team-first orientation. He was hired as COO, promoted to president, and ultimately became CEO.
The business thrived after this hire. The founder transitioned into the role of board chair, where he remained deeply engaged as a cultural ambassador and an M&A adviser. The private equity sponsor ultimately chose to reinvest in the company rather than exit, a testament to the strength of the leadership bench and the transition itself.
This example underscores two key lessons. First, the right successor isn’t always the flashiest candidate; it’s often the one who fills critical capability gaps needed to scale and aligns best with the founder’s values. Second, even when you have the right person in waiting, getting succession right takes time. That’s why it’s essential to start founder transitions long before they are imminent.
In another case, involving a professional services firm, the board and advisers recognized the complexity of navigating a founder transition and resisted the urge to force a clean handoff. The internal successor had been thoughtfully vetted and developed with founder dynamics in mind. The founder, who had originally expressed burnout and a desire to step back, regained energy as the company neared a liquidity event and reinserted himself into the business.
Rather than framing the situation as a binary choice between the founder and the successor, the board pursued a leadership-stabilization strategy. They kept the founder engaged and focused on where he added the most value while formally elevating the successor to the role of president and preparing her for long-term leadership. The business completed a successful recapitalization, the founder remained emotionally invested, and the successor is now well positioned for when the full transition takes place.
As this example makes clear, successful founder transitions rarely follow a straight line. Successors and boards need to prepare to adapt, balancing influence and authority, honoring identity, and building momentum gradually.
Of course, not all founder-successor pairings play out smoothly. One founder we know selected an external successor—a former colleague he saw as a kindred spirit. Both had been brought up in similar ways and overcome similar kinds of adversity, but their working styles clashed: The founder was informal, impulsive, and deeply intuitive, whereas the successor was process-oriented, data-driven, and methodical. Even with a yearlong trial run and coaching support, the relationship deteriorated. The successor was ultimately installed as CEO, but the business has since stumbled, with unresolved cultural dissonance still lingering.
In another case, a founder promoted a loyal lieutenant to CEO, a decision driven more by loyalty than readiness. The successor was skilled at working under the founder—but not at leading independently. The founder never fully let go, and the new CEO never fully took the reins. The result was a company caught in limbo between its past and its future.
Together, these cases underscore a critical point: Even when a successor feels like the obvious choice, founder transitions demand rigor, objectivity, and time. “We thought we had an internal candidate who could develop into the CEO role and succeed the founder,” one investor told us, “but that turned out to be a flawed assumption. I wish we had done the work to objectively assess him and his runway sooner. Instead, we are starting at zero with an external search.” Getting the founder transition right means building in the space to test, learn, and, if needed, change course.
. . .
Founder transitions are psychological processes disguised as organizational ones. Success hinges as much on mindset as on capability. Founders must elevate their successors’ legitimacy, and successors must earn trust through humility and cultural sensitivity.
When neglected, transitions quietly erode even strong companies. But when handled with care and foresight, they can unlock growth for everyone involved: the founder, the successor, the business, and its backers.
Comments are closed.