Horowitz argues that forgoing a board is a massive legal risk for CEOs. A board's primary function is to provide a legal shield. Running material decisions, like equity grants, past the board protects the CEO from personal liability and lawsuits from shareholders. Without this process, founders are dangerously exposed.
Reed Hastings argues board members lack daily context to add value with advice. Their true function is to be an "insurance layer," with their most crucial responsibility being the decision to replace the CEO if needed. They must learn the business not to advise, but to be prepared for that moment.
A founder's real boss is their customer base. While keeping a board happy is important, some CEOs become so consumed with managing up that they lose sight of the product and customer needs, ultimately driving the company off a cliff despite running perfect board meetings.
A16z's foundational belief is that founders, not hired "professional CEOs," should lead their companies long-term. The firm is structured as a network of specialists to provide founders with the knowledge and connections they lack, enabling them to grow into the CEO role and succeed.
Lawyers are paid to minimize legal risk. A CEO's unique role is to balance that counsel against other crucial factors like customer trust, employee morale, and future opportunities. Ceding decision-making entirely to the legal team is a failure of leadership that can lead to catastrophic, albeit less immediately visible, losses.
A board member's role is to provide outside perspective to help a CEO think through a problem, not to make the decision. CEOs who ask 'what should we do?' risk abdicating responsibility to someone who lacks the deep operational context to make the right call. This can be destructive to a CEO's development.
A board member's role includes flagging strategic risks, including geopolitical exposure that could drastically limit future acquirers or prevent an IPO. Advising a CEO to relocate teams from a high-risk country is not operational meddling, but a core governance duty.
When fundraising, the most critical choice isn't the VC fund's brand but the specific partner who will join the board. Sophisticated founders vet the individual's strengths, weaknesses, and working style, as that person has a more direct impact on the company than the firm's logo on a term sheet.
When a founder faces a major acquisition offer, the pivotal question isn't just about valuation, but temperament. A board member should ask, "Are you built to be a public company CEO?" The intense stress and public scrutiny aren't for everyone. Pushing a founder who isn't an "IPO guy" to reject an offer can be a disastrous long-term decision.
Indiegogo co-founder Slava Rubin was replaced as CEO by the board due to a conflict over prioritizing aggressive growth versus unit economics. He argues that removing a founder too early can handicap a company's potential and cause it to miss larger market opportunities.
Founders remain long after hired executives depart, inheriting the outcomes of past choices. This long-term ownership is a powerful justification for founders to stay deeply involved in key decisions, trusting their unique context over an expert's resume.