A strong, engaged board is one of the most effective mechanisms for ensuring that founder control doesn’t supersede an organization’s needs and objectives, Susanna Kislenko and Cathy Barr write. They share some key strategies and a new guide for founder-led organizations.
In a series of interviews with founders and board chairs of Canadian non-profits, one board chair shared the following: “The WE scandal was all over the papers, all over the news. All I could think about was ‘Oh my god, we’re going to be the next ones.’ As small as we are, we’re going to be on the front pages of The Globe and Mail.”
This board chair’s fear was fuelled by the recognition that the leader they were working with might have founder’s syndrome, which is characterized by the founder holding disproportionate control and power within the organization. It is called founder’s syndrome because, while the condition initially plagues founders themselves, over time it can affect everyone who comes into contact with the organization and ultimately threaten its very survival. Founder’s syndrome is not always easy to spot, but recognizing it as early as possible is critical to preventing its adverse effects from spreading.
Common indicators of founder’s syndrome:
- The organization’s identity is exclusively tied to the founder.
- The founder micromanages and struggles to delegate.
- Decisions are centralized, with the founder as the sole authority.
- Staff turnover is high, often because talented employees feel undervalued or stifled.
- Staff or board members who threaten the founder’s visibility may be undermined.
- Information is siloed, limiting transparency and communication.
- Only “yes” people surround the founder, discouraging dissent or critical feedback.
- Growth is constrained by a lack of internal capacity and infrastructure.
- Succession planning is neglected or resisted by the founder.
For board members, these signs are more than red flags; they are signals that intervention may be necessary. Resistance to strategic planning, avoidance of policy creation, and reluctance to share authority all suggest that the founder may need support transitioning from hands-on leadership to a more collaborative, future-focused approach. Of course, this is often easier said than done, but our research offers insights into a path forward.
The critical relationship between founder’s syndrome and board governance
In 2022 and 2023, we conducted research on the relationship between founders and board chairs, as well as broader governance dynamics in founder-led organizations. One of the most important discoveries we made is that the board’s role is vital in ensuring that founder control doesn’t supersede the organization’s needs and objectives. In other words, the board can prevent the negative effects of founder’s syndrome.
The syndrome is characterized by the founder’s desire to maintain ultimate control at all levels of the organization, which includes governance structures. They ensure that board members are selected for their high loyalty to the founder, making it less likely that the founder will be held to account or face significant opposition. One founder explained their rationale as follows: “You see, founders have a rather unique relationship with boards because in the ordinary course of things, boards choose CEOs. But founders choose boards. Right?”
Indeed. This is what makes founder-led organizations unique: the sheer level of power and control the founder can exert, not only as the organization’s leader but also as the one who birthed it. The parenting metaphor can help us understand the difference between founders and other leaders. Think about how you would approach a parent who appeared to be mistreating their child. That hesitation and doubt is exactly why founder’s syndrome can be so lethal: few people will dare to mess with the parenting tactics of a founder leader, presuming that they know best what their organizational “child” needs.
However, this does not mean boards are powerless. A strong, engaged board is one of the most effective mechanisms for mitigating the syndrome. Here are some key strategies boards can adopt:
- Recognize power dynamics: Boards should understand where authority is concentrated and work toward balance. Look beyond the obvious, as well as beyond the information you may be receiving from the founder, especially if you suspect you are not getting the whole story. Without this awareness, governance reforms are unlikely to succeed.
- Foster open communication: Encouraging dissent and diverse perspectives is essential. This is closely linked to psychological safety. Staff and board members should feel truly free to offer input. Also, board and staff members should have the freedom to communicate with one another, without the founder always mediating the relationship.
- Strengthen internal capacity: Boards should ensure that leadership and management responsibilities are distributed across multiple staff members. Among other advantages, this reduces decision-making bottlenecks and builds organizational resilience. Looking at the organizational chart alone is not enough; a thorough understanding of the day-to-day workflow is required.
- Support governance renewal: Recruiting new board members with fresh perspectives helps to counter entrenched power dynamics and strengthen collective oversight. New board members are more likely to have a balanced view of what is possible for the organization, without being enamoured by the founder’s vision alone.
The need for a clear distinction between roles
One of the findings of our research is that many board members in founder-led organizations lack a clear understanding of their responsibilities. Sometimes that is because they are first-time board members. At other times, it is because they have not received any training on their duties as board members, regardless of how many boards they may have been on in the past.
At the most basic level, the board is responsible for the organization’s strategic and legal governance. The board as a whole has the authority to decide the organization’s direction. It also has the authority to hire and, if necessary, terminate the most senior staff person. Individually, directors have specific legal and fiduciary duties, including:
- Duty of care: The obligation to act with the same care that a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances.
- Duty of loyalty: The requirement to put the interests of the organization before personal or professional interests.
- Duty of obedience: The obligation to ensure that the organization complies with applicable laws and regulations and adheres to its mission and governing documents.
Note that “duty to the founder” is not on this list. Although the founder created the organization, once it exists, its best interests must be seen as distinct from those of its founder. This is one of the elements that can get lost in organizations affected by founder’s syndrome. Board members may be brought on with the implicit (or even explicit) expectation that their primary loyalty is to the founder. Many organizations operate this way, which creates significant challenges. One common challenge is that the board resists evaluating the founder’s performance. In one case that we studied, a former board chair said: “You know, having those discussions about the performance and the role of what the ED needs to do are very difficult when you have a founder, because it’s their organization, and it’s not easy to hear you’re losing control. I think it’s hard for founders to accept that.”
The subtleties of succession planning in the context of founder’s syndrome
One of the clearest signs of founder’s syndrome is the founder’s resistance to succession planning – they might do everything in their power to avoid the topic. Alternatively, they may appear to engage in the conversation and possibly even create a written plan but have no real intention of carrying it out. In extreme cases, the board may hire an external expert to create a succession plan, only for the document to sit on a shelf collecting dust because the founder has no intention of following it.
Non-profit organizations exist to fulfill a mission, and it is the board’s duty to keep that mission front and centre at all times.
These ways of avoiding succession planning are, unfortunately, quite common. Founders may resist relinquishing control, even when their continued leadership is impossible or impractical. One board chair, who was handling a complicated succession transition with a founder who had been at the organization for more than two decades, shared the following: “I think he had expected that he could control the whole thing and that we as a board would just rubber-stamp it all, and that isn’t what happened.”
Boards negotiating these challenges need to remember that non-profit organizations are ultimately about more than any one person. They exist to fulfill a mission, and it is the board’s duty to keep that mission front and centre at all times. By addressing the challenges of founder’s syndrome, founders and boards can ensure that their organizations not only survive but thrive, carrying their vision forward into a future shaped by shared leadership, resilient structures, and enduring impact.
Help for founders and board members of founder-led organizations
Founder’s syndrome is a complex, often subtle, challenge that can shape the trajectory of a non-profit organization. Left unchecked, it can undermine collaboration, stifle growth, and jeopardize mission impact. At its core, the issue is about balance: balancing control with delegation, vision with collaboration, and legacy with innovation. Founders who reflect honestly on their motivations, embrace support, and empower others lay the foundation for sustainable, mission-driven success. Boards that recognize power dynamics, foster open communication, and prioritize both oversight and support create the conditions for long-term organizational health, diminishing the effects of founder’s syndrome.
To help founders and board members of founder-led organizations navigate this challenging terrain, we have written a guide titled Good Governance and Leadership in Founder-Led Organizations. The guide is organized according to the three main phases that most founder-led organizations go through: start-up, growth, and transition. In each section, we speak directly to both founders and board members, focusing on the issues that our research indicates are most crucial to long-term organizational success. Each section also includes a discussion of founder’s syndrome. The guide has been published and made available free of charge, in both English and French, by Imagine Canada.
The insights and findings in this article are based on original research supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The publication of Good Governance and Leadership in Founder-Led Organizations was supported by Ignite NPS.
