Reading things like this and how common it is for investors to take over, I just wonder how it is possible that a young - and presumably naive - Mark Zuckerberg avoided the typical VC pitfalls and board guillotine / "CEO replaces themselves to help transition company to the next level" path?
Was it just because Facebook's growth was so unprecedented they had no need to replace him? Or did he have a very good mentor or early investors that believed in him or helped guide him without taking advantage of the situation? Or was he actually just extremely shrewd at navigating board politics?
If the company makes money, there is very little reason to fire the CEO. In fact pretty much the opposite, there are probably CEOs that would deserve to be fired for multiple reasons, but because the company makes good money, the board won't care. The board is responsible towards the owners, if they actually fire a CEO of a performant company, they really have to show why it was in the best interest of the owner.
All these stories where the CEOs were fired are from companies that weren't profitable, needed constant funding rounds etc. In the situation where the company is just sucking money from investors the CEO gets changed easily.
The idea that "if the company makes money" is taken as a universal here is false. In the real world it is entirely contentious, and the source these sorts of conflicts. The fact is no one knows for sure the future prospects of a company, but people with power can surely ram through their ideas even in the face of economic pain.
Wrangling that sort of power maneuver is the responsibility of the founder; that is if they wish to retain their control.
He had leverage. Facebook's massive growth meant that he could command the terms of the investment, and he ensured that he would always continue to control the board even as he was being diluted with later rounds.
I think people don't credit Zuck with intelligence. Sure he created something simple, but he saw the value he could create, grew it, avoided giving away large chunks of it.
He did go to an Ivy school, presumably knew how to learn on his own.
And also there are people that you could probably trust to give you good advice:
1. business owners not invested in making money off you.
2. your lawyer is effectively a extremely expensive professional advisor, and generally required to be a fiduciary to you.
Was it just because Facebook's growth was so unprecedented they had no need to replace him? Or did he have a very good mentor or early investors that believed in him or helped guide him without taking advantage of the situation? Or was he actually just extremely shrewd at navigating board politics?