Founder's Syndrome

Starting or growing an organization has been likened to child-rearing. Through sweat, tears, labor pains and blood you birth something that is very much a part of you. You feel ownership and strong emotional ties such that when anyone questions your method of caring for your “child” you react in real anger and fear. You put your life’s blood into this; you know best how to care for it. Usually it is less obvious this is what is happening; often the symptoms are frustration on the part of those you brought on to help you. They enlisted believing that they would have a say and find that even though you listen enthusiastically to their suggestions, when it comes down to it your way goes. You may justify it any way you like but if you find your ministry leaving a wake of frustrated and disillusioned people it’s time to ask if you have Founder’s Syndrome.

Founder’s Syndrome is often noted in large-scale organizations but in reality it is most rampant in smaller non-profits where the leader or founder has developed a system of top-down exclusive decision making. It’s easier to drop into this when the group is smaller since s/he has been forced by default to make most decisions and as it grows and s/he brings on new workers his/her pattern of control begins to be a problem. The need to control is part of a two-sided coin: to grow an organization from nothing requires a leader who refuses to compromise, works relentlessly and makes tough choices. The other side emerges when the organization becomes more stable and it is not necessary for him/her to do all the work. The very strengths that birthed the organization now morph into an obstinate refusal to stand correction or dissent. In the smaller groups this pattern continues easily as growth and potential stagnate and the organization can continue for quite some time before it implodes, often with the death of the leader. A larger organization would not last as long since the very scale would accelerate the arrival of a breaking point.

In order to avoid the dissolution of all that the founder has worked for, many writers on the topic advocate organizational checks and balances or a system that is set up for long-term maintenance. While practical and safe this is actually another death sentence on the vision of the organization. Instead, two main needs must be addressed: the essential foundation of the organization and the kernel that makes an organization viable.

Firstly, founder’s end up in muddy water when the organization becomes about them and not their mission. Any Christian organization, for example, should be founded upon the Founder: Christ. If He is truly the one leading and guiding as they strive to be His hands and feet, then the founder can remain humble and open to correction and suggestion. Challenges are no longer perceived as personal but opportunities to reexamine the functioning, direction or style of the group. Everything is checked against God’s will and not the leader’s will. Founder’s can remember that the early church had many examples of times when even the Apostles got off-base and needed to be reminded of truth (cf. Peter corrected by Paul Gal 2.11-14; Athanasius and the Council of Nicea AD325).

Secondly, the essence of any new movement that solidifies into an organization is not maintenance. The founder believes that something is lacking and he seeks in an innovatory way to pioneer and improve the situation. These are not stagnating words. Growth and change is as essential in the life of an organization as in the life of a human child. When the founder begins to entrench and demand a functional style that resists new methods of doing things (remaining true to the vision of course) he has begun a downward spiral. Just as a child who never grows up is seen as a developmentally stunted, so an organization that refuses to welcome fresh ideas becomes childish and outdated. 

In sum, founders and boards need to simply measure each decision with regards to the original mission and whether the decision grows or treads water. Realizing that the very strengths which bolstered the founder through the difficult times now become weaknesses helps the founder be aware of potential trouble areas. Often but not always this will lead a discerning founder to realize that s/he needs to abdicate and allow the organization to grow on its own. Not an easy decision, but one that successful major organizations have been forced to make. If your organization is known by its name and not the founder, this is a good sign that you have made that transition.