This is probably the wrong place to ask this, but why do founders often give up the position of CEO after the startup is established and up and running?
Traditionally the conventional wisdom, as told by people who I'll note had a stake in this type of outcome, was that the founders by definition didn't have what it takes to grow the company.
Sometimes this certainly true. Maybe even most of the time. But then there's the question, can the founders learn what they need to learn about growing the company more easily than Mr. New CEO learn what's essential to its success that he doesn't understand and probably has no background, no intuitive feeling about.
The CEO in theory has the character necessary to do the big(er) company things and this is no small matter, a lot of people just don't have that (management and leadership are HARD). Whereas the character of the founders in this role is generally untested or often in the process of being tested and found wanting.
I've seen both sides, there's no hard and fast rule here.
In my case we merged with a competitor, and I believed the competitors' CEO was better at key aspects of his job (fundraising, providing motivating leadership) than I was.
