Board Members
<i>> It’s a good idea to keep enough control so that investors can’t fire you (there are a lot of different ways to do this)</i><p>Can anyone elaborate?<p>Sam articulates several advantages to having a board (focus on execution, thinking big, hiring executives) but none of them really require the board to have voting control, i.e. the ability to override the founder.<p>More generally, I think most founders would be fine with and welcome an outside board as long as there was a Zuckerberg-like voting agreement where the founders retained control. But then again I don't really understand the difference between that and a board of advisors.<p>Bottom line, why do investors care about control at the early stages? Do they really expect that they'll need to override the founder in the nascent stages? Is it just a security blanket? I would be wary of investors who really insist on the ability to vote against the founders at the seed to series A stage.