One of the greatest aspects of running a company is taking on new challenges, especially when they arise in the form of exciting innovations.
Yet, one of the greatest problems is dealing with new talent who also come with big personalities and characters immune to simply fitting into the status quo.
These two aspects often come together, a phenomenon exhibited precisely by tech giant Facebook over the past few years.
It’s known as Facebook’s founder problem: When the tech giant takes over a smaller start-up with a potentially competitive product, it’s usually a matter of time before the subsidiary’s founder parts ways with the acquirer.
Instagram co-founders Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger left the companyOpens a new window after disagreeing with Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg over how to integrate the photo app with the social networking platform. Messaging service WhatsApp co-founder Brian Acton leftOpens a new window over disagreements with Zuckerberg about user privacy.
The latest high-profile departure came last week. Virtual reality company Oculus’s head of product management, Nate Mitchell, left Facebook after seven years at the company. Oculus founder Palmer Luckey had already left FacebookOpens a new window  in 2017, citing political differences with Zuckerberg.
What they have in common: Disagreements with the head honcho. With Zuckerberg having his own force at Facebook, the result is to tamp down dissent as the company plows ahead with his vision.
That strategy has shown success until recently, judging by certain metrics (for example, number of monthly users, stock value). On the other hand, growing concerns over privacy intrusions and election influencing have stained the company name.
When the company founder is overbearing, there are a few things to keep in mind.
Dissent breeds creativity
The biggest innovations that Facebook has seen have come in the form of its high-profile acquisitions rather than visions developed within the company. That might have something to do with a company culture overly reliant on one leader where there are clear repercussions for disagreeing with him.
Encouraging dissent in the form of open dialogue, as a mainstay of corporate culture, can be one way to juice creativity. Setting up forums for dissent, where employees can voice their concerns or frustrations with the direction of the company, can be effective for providing an outlet for concern and can confront leaders with alternative visions.
The key to promoting dissent is to retain a focus on positive outcomes; when negativity rules, then forums can just become complaint sessions that leave everyone feeling down. Negative feedback has to be acceptable, but challenge everyone to propose a potential solution to every problem they identify.
Power in numbers
Ultimately, it’s impossible to provide a counterforce to the vision of one chief executive without a diverse group. When leaders go head-to-head with a founder, they’re almost always likely to fail to make significant changes; the founder will always have the upper hand, being in the stronger position than anyone else at the company.
But a group of executives with strong perspectives, whose opinions regularly diverge between siding with and opposing each other and the founder and who bring their own experience with them can keep the company balanced.
Of course, building such a company requires the dedication of a leader willing to cede some of his or her power for the health and sustainability of the organization overall.
And it’s hard to see the whole picture, when you’re sitting behind the steering wheel.