_edited.jpg)
In Silicon Valley, there's an unwritten rule that the best founders keep control of their companies for as long as possible. From Mark Zuckerberg’s iron grip on Meta to the dual-class share structures of Google, Snap, and Airbnb, many tech giants are built to ensure that founders remain in power—sometimes indefinitely.
But Bill Gates? He thinks that's a mistake.
The man who built Microsoft into a trillion-dollar empire could have structured it any way he wanted. He could have given himself permanent voting control, the ability to override his board, and the power to make unilateral decisions. Instead, he deliberately chose not to.
And he thinks today’s founders are getting it wrong.
The Temptation of Total Control
The appeal of dual-class share structures is obvious: they give founders absolute power over their companies, even after going public. This means that no matter what happens—poor financial performance, strategic missteps, or even personal scandals—the founder remains untouchable.
It's a structure used by some of the biggest names in tech:
Mark Zuckerberg (Meta) controls about 60% of voting power, even though he owns far less of the company's stock.
Larry Page & Sergey Brin (Google) structured Alphabet so they could always outvote regular shareholders.
Evan Spiegel (Snapchat) owns less than 3% of Snap, but still has near-total control.
For founders, this setup seems like a dream. No activist investors pressuring you to change course. No hostile takeovers. No boardroom coups. Just pure, uninterrupted control over your vision.
But Gates saw the danger in that.
Bill Gates: “I Think It's a Mistake”
When asked about his decision to forgo a dual-class share structure at Microsoft, Gates was blunt:
"I think it's a mistake. And I've said that to everyone who's asked me."
Unlike today’s Silicon Valley founders, Gates never wanted to be a dictator. He believed that if he was running Microsoft well, he wouldn’t need extra layers of control to protect himself:
"It's enough as an individual to really feel like you're responsible for the success of a company."
His reasoning was simple: a company’s governance mechanisms exist for a reason. They ensure accountability. If a CEO makes repeated mistakes, the board should be able to step in. But in a dual-class structure, that safeguard disappears:
"To actually go and short-circuit the governance mechanism, where if you really are making mistakes, your board can't outvote you, that you literally can just replace the board the next day—how kind of hubris is that?"
Gates is making a point that many founders ignore: absolute power can make you blind.
The Dangers of Founder Dictatorship
History has shown us what happens when unchecked power goes wrong.
WeWork: Adam Neumann’s Unstoppable Power Trip
Adam Neumann, the infamous founder of WeWork, is a perfect example of what Gates is warning against. When WeWork prepared to go public, investors were shocked by what they found:
Neumann had supervoting shares that gave him 20 votes per share.
He had the power to fire the entire board at any time.
He even had plans for his wife to help choose the next CEO if something happened to him.
With no accountability, Neumann ran WeWork like a personal playground. He made reckless decisions, from wild real estate expansions to bizarre side businesses (like a failed elementary school). By the time investors revolted, WeWork had burned billions of dollars and lost over $40 billion in valuation overnight.
Uber: The Board Had to Force Out Travis Kalanick
Travis Kalanick, Uber’s controversial co-founder, was another victim of unchecked control. He ran Uber with a win-at-all-costs mentality, but his leadership style led to endless scandals—toxic workplace culture, legal battles, and regulatory fights.
Uber didn’t have a dual-class share structure, so when things spiraled out of control, the board forced Kalanick to step down in 2017. If he had controlled the board, he could have fought back—potentially dragging Uber into even deeper chaos.
What Gates Got Right
Gates' decision to let go of total control wasn’t just about humility. It was about building a company that could outlive him.
Microsoft has outlasted nearly every tech trend of the past four decades. The company thrived even after Gates stepped down, growing into a trillion-dollar powerhouse under Satya Nadella. That level of resilience comes from a strong, independent governance system, not from a single founder holding all the power.
Contrast that with companies that were too dependent on their founders:
Twitter (under Jack Dorsey) struggled with direction and execution for years.
Meta (under Zuckerberg) is facing increasing pressure due to controversial decisions, but shareholders have no way to challenge him.
Tesla (under Elon Musk) often sees its stock rise and fall based purely on Musk’s unpredictable behavior.
Gates understood that true leadership isn’t about clinging to power—it’s about building an organization that can succeed without you.
The Choice Every Founder Must Make
If you’re building a startup, the question isn’t whether you can set up a dual-class share structure—it’s whether you should.
When Founder Control Works
There are cases where keeping strong founder control makes sense:
When building something radically new, where investors might not understand the vision (e.g., SpaceX).
When the market is too short-term focused, and long-term innovation needs protection.
When the founder has a proven track record of making bold, correct decisions.
When It’s a Mistake
But more often than not, founder control turns into a liability:
If a leader becomes out of touch with employees, customers, or market conditions.
If the company scales beyond the founder’s expertise.
If the structure prevents necessary leadership changes when things go wrong.
The Wisdom of Letting Go
The best founders recognize that their job is to build something bigger than themselves.
Gates never needed extra voting power to stay in control—his leadership and vision were enough. When it was time to step away, Microsoft didn’t collapse. It thrived.
So the next time a founder considers locking in permanent control, they should ask themselves:
"Do I really need this? Or am I just afraid of losing power?"
Because the greatest leaders aren’t the ones who hold on the longest. They’re the ones who build companies that don’t need them anymore.
Ready to seize your big opportunities? Subscribe to our newsletter for weekly insights, tips, and stories to help you make smarter decisions and achieve your goals!
Watch Bill Gates:
Comentários