Those that have worked for me and/or with me, know that I strive to reach consensus around major decisions in the life of a company. I find that to keep a start-up team motivated, you need to keep everyone feeling like partners in the major decisions.
But, what happens when the drive to consensus fails?
That's the real test of a start-up CEO, to keep the company moving forward even though there will be at least one disgruntled team member (and in an early stage start-up, every team member is critical...there are no "nice to have" people).
The real challenge is to take decisions, sometimes against the "majority" (in a start-up of three people majority will always leave one lonely person out in the cold).
Sure, a start-up can be run as a partnership, with equal voting to all co-founders, but often cap tables and real-life don't work so smoothly. In addition, there are day-to-day decisions that cannot wait for everyone to come to agreement, and yes, at times leadership is required../
One way to define the responsibility of a start-up CEO is to be a benevolent dictator. Most of the time striving for consensus, most of the time empowering team members -- but sometimes the need for a dictator arises, to take decisions and move the company forward.
This gets really tricky when the company is co-founded on an egalitarian basis, and roles are settled upon -- I argue that the naming of one of the co-founders is not only a title, but an imbuing one member of the team with greater "powers" than the rest. The social contract that is often unspoken, and certainly not written, is that the CEO will lead. The only way to lead is if the power to take decisions comes along with the title.
But start-up CEOs be warned: dictators can be overthrown. use your powers wisely.
