The founder syndrome.
It can be found in charities, in for-profits, and in social enterprises alike. And if anything, it’s existence, or absence, is the one most important decisive factor whether or not an (ethical) SMEs stands serious chances to survive on the long run, and contribute to society. The principle capability, to survive in this context eventually boils down to one key question:
Can, or not, the founding individual or group of people, eventually let go of their 'child' (i.e. the organisation), and let it have a live of its own?
The ‘sustainability’ industry is raking with founders of innovative, high potential organisations that never let go of ‘their baby’, and are and keep controlling its every move. And: while doing, so they are inhibiting the organisations’ development and long-term survival. It’s a sad picture, after all, it implies that the organisation’s ‘parent’ is acting highly ego-centric, gradually killing its own child through being more in tune with his/her/their own needs rather than that of the company and its stakeholders.
The comparison may initially sound far fetched, but it in reality is quite straight forward:
Just like parents bringing a child into this world, a company founder brings a brain (or heart) child of his/hers/theirs into this world. One that initially needs continued nursing by every single available hand, but that gradually starts to toddle, develop its own needs and personality. Just like children, a company at some stage or other will enter ‘puberty’, when the circumstances and the stakeholders will ask for more independence, including self-responsibility, from the parent-founder. And: if not given adequately, the damage created is irrevocable, potentially fatal. Children, just as much as companies with their stakeholders, are meant, rather: designed, to grow up at some point, and have a life of their own.
But, beyond metaphors, what is the ‘founder syndrome’?
Founder's syndrome, sometimes also called Founderitis, is a label normally used to refer to a pattern of behaviour on the part of the founder(s) of an organization that, over time, becomes maladaptive to the successful accomplishment of the organizational mission. The term is anecdotal/unofficial and does not actually refer to a medical syndrome. It is particularly common where there has only been one person leading the organization or the board of directors since its inception and commonly occurs in both non-profit and for-profit. (Source: Wikipedia)
How can we know, if a company, and its founder, is ‘suffering’ from Founderitis? Here a brief check-list (Source) of typical behaviours of a Founderitis sufferer:
* Inability to delegate
* Anger when not included in every decision
* Paranoia derived from a sense that the venture is “slipping out of their control”
* Ignoring input from subject-matter experts
* Expressing prescient knowledge, even when lacking subject-matter expertise
* Lack of respect for formalized planning
* Subterfuge of efforts to institute procedures, processes and controls
The Founder Syndrome is particularly popular in small SMEs (1 to 20 employees app.) in the sustainability industry – including sustainable or ethical fashion – , because
– these SMEs tend to be relatively speaking young (often less than 10 years old)
– they swim counter current to the mainstream, and hence the founders are strong personalities as such
– the sustainability industry promotes, very unfortunately, a lot of ‘black and white’ (good vs. bad) thinking, rather than balanced, proactive and objective analysis
– even constructive critique is often not appreciated because it is assumed that it means talking negatively about an organisation and its founder (when it reality means pointing out weaknesses so that they can be fixed)
And it has to be stated very clearly:
Working with a Founderitis sufferer invariably means that staff divorce themselves emotionally from the goals and needs of the company because they are not taken seriously in any of their suggestions, requests and achievements. In short: the Founder Syndrome is the safest way to guarantee that a company at most survives for as long as its founder does, and the best way to create a despotic reputation in the local community and the company’s niche market.
The Founder System hence, is the highest imaginable risk – right after misuse of funds – to a company’s survival.
But how, at least on paper, would the ideal scenario for a ‘good’ company-internal power balance look like?
It is at least conceptually rather straight forward:
A fair, grounded and objective balance between expertise of the staff and vision of the founder needs to exist. Trust and mutual respect is key thereby, where ‘respect’ means listening and and giving credit to differing – even clashing – opinions, while trying to extract the value contained in the critique for the business as a whole.
Delegating responsibilities early on, with clear accountability rather than tight control, is another aspect which not only contributes to a more levelled, non-hierarchical power balance, and hence to a more productive work climate fostering the stakeholders’ emotional ownership of and commitment to the company.
And finally, one thing of which there cannot ever be too much: Respect for each client, customer, supplier and member of staff. For their contribution to the business, their time, skill and knowledge they invest – even through critique – into the future of the business.
