Article

When Should a Founder Bring in a COO? And why choosing the right type of COO could save or sink your company

September 28, 2025

One of the biggest dilemmas that founders face knowing when and why to bring in a Chief Operating Officer (COO). Too early, and you risk creating bureaucracy before the business finds its footing. Too late, and the founder becomes a bottleneck, throttling growth and burning out teams. Get the wrong type of COO, and you’ll spark culture clashes or stifle innovation. I have had 4 COOs over my career. Their styles and capabilities were very different and the role I needed them to play differed dramatically based on the stage of the company. Some of them worked out beautifully and were the perfect complement to my founder tendencies and limitations. Some were a disaster. Here is what I learned.


The COO is the most variable role in the C-suite. Some founders never hire one. Others go through three or four before finding the right fit. In many cases, the question isn’t if you need a COO—it’s what type of COO your company and your leadership style demand at this stage of growth.


Let’s break this down.


Why COOs Matter

Founders are visionaries. They are idea machines, market spotters, and force-of-nature storytellers who rally talent and investors around a dream. But those same strengths often come paired with weaknesses: disorganization, impatience, lack of systems, and difficulty letting go of control.


A strong COO is the counterweight. They turn vision into execution. They stabilize culture. They keep promises made to customers and investors. And, at the right time, they free the founder to do what only the founder can do—set direction, evangelize the mission, and keep the spark alive.


But “COO” isn’t one job. It’s a category. And picking the wrong type is like forcing a square peg into a round hole.


The Seven Archetypes of COOs


1. The Executor

The backbone of day-to-day operations. They build systems, enforce discipline, and make the trains run on time.

  • Best fit: Visionary founders who thrive on ideas but leave chaos in their wake.
  • Stage: Early scaling, when the business needs process without killing momentum.
  • Examples: Sheryl Sandberg at Facebook (balancing Zuckerberg’s vision), Gwynne Shotwell at SpaceX (stabilizing Musk’s whirlwind).


2. The Change Agent

The fixer. Brought in when transformation is urgent—scaling fast, restructuring, or pulling out of crisis.

  • Best fit: Founders who know the business has outgrown their own operational grip.
  • Stage: Scaling into hypergrowth, or turnaround scenarios.
  • Examples: Daniel Alegre at Activision Blizzard, leading cultural and operational overhaul.


3. The Mentor/Partner

The grown-up in the room. A seasoned leader who steadies a first-time or young founder, often more coach than operator.

  • Best fit: Visionary but inexperienced founders, often in the earliest stages of institutional growth.
  • Stage: Transition from startup scrappiness to formal organization.
  • Examples: Eric Schmidt at Google—while not COO by title, he played this role for Page and Brin.


4. The Heir Apparent

The COO as CEO-in-waiting. They take on broad P&L responsibility, often shadowing the founder before succession.

  • Best fit: Companies preparing for leadership transition.
  • Stage: Later scaling into maturit
  • Examples: Tim Cook at Apple before succeeding Steve Jobs.


5. The MVP Functionalist

The specialist. A COO with deep expertise in one critical area—finance, product, supply chain, or sales.

  • Best fit: Founders strong in vision but weak in a single domain essential to scaling.
  • Stage: Startup to early scale.
  • Examples: Prabir Adarkar at DoorDash, covering finance and operations.


6. The Complement to the CEO’s Gaps

A tailor-made role. If the founder is a disorganized visionary, the COO is structured and disciplined. If the founder is technical but introverted, the COO is outward-facing and people-savvy.

  • Best fit: Any founder aware enough to know their own blind spots.
  • Stage: Anywhere, but especially scaling.
  • Examples: Sandberg balancing Zuckerberg’s lack of operational rigor; Shotwell countering Musk’s volatility.


7. The Integrator/Hybrid

The most complex type. They unify strategy, execution, culture, and talent at once—bridging across multiple functions.

  • Best fit: Complex, multi-line businesses with global teams.
  • Stage: Scaling into maturity.
  • Examples: Angela Ahrendts at Burberry, integrating brand, culture, and operations before moving to Apple.


Why Founder–COO Relationships Fail So Often

If the COO role is so valuable, why do so many founder–COO relationships crash and burn? Boards are often gun-shy about hiring COOs because they’ve seen these partnerships implode. The reasons fall into several predictable buckets.


1. Lack of Role Clarity

The fastest way to sabotage the relationship is leaving the COO’s job undefined. Who owns what decisions? Where does accountability lie? If the COO’s role overlaps with the founder’s, or isn’t communicated to the rest of the team, the COO quickly becomes either a glorified project manager or a powerless deputy. Both end badly.


2. Founder’s Inability to Let Go

Many founders simply can’t let go. They want to approve every detail, revisit every decision, and undermine the very autonomy they hired the COO to exercise. A COO who feels second-guessed or constantly overruled either disengages or quits.


3. Misaligned Vision and Values

Operational excellence isn’t enough if the COO doesn’t fully buy into the founder’s vision and cultural values. When the COO wants to optimize for stability while the founder is pushing disruption—or vice versa—the two end up pulling the company in opposite directions.


4. Trust and Emotional Reactivity

Trust is fragile. If the founder is volatile under stress, or the COO isn’t skilled at navigating the founder’s personality, the relationship becomes brittle. Outbursts, defensiveness, or miscommunications erode psychological safety between them and ripple across the organization.


5. Succession Ambiguity and Power Tensions

Is the COO being groomed as the future CEO—or not? Few questions create more tension. If expectations aren’t clarified up front, the COO may feel misled and the founder may feel threatened. Meanwhile, employees begin to compare the two and pick sides. Boards have seen this movie before, and it rarely ends well.


6. Unrealistic Expectations

Founders and boards often expect the COO to “fix everything yesterday.” In reality, operational improvements take time—learning systems, culture, and people. When results don’t appear overnight, frustration builds. On the flip side, some COOs expect to make sweeping changes immediately, without respecting the founder’s legacy or the team’s tolerance for disruption.


7. Culture and Communication Breakdowns

The founder and COO need structured ways to align—weekly check-ins, clear communication norms, and mechanisms to resolve disagreements. Without them, minor irritations accumulate into major grievances. Worse, the team sees open conflict at the top and begins to question who’s really in charge.


8. Identity and Ego Issues

Let’s name the elephant in the room: many founders see hiring a COO as an admission of weakness. They sabotage the hire by bypassing the COO or contradicting them in front of the team. On the other side, ambitious COOs often chafe at being “Number Two.” If the relationship isn’t anchored in humility and respect, egos will clash.


How Founders Can Prevent the Breakdown

Knowing the pitfalls is only half the battle. Preventing them takes deliberate work:


  • Define the COO’s mandate explicitly—what they own, what’s shared, and what stays with the CEO.
  • Set up trust rituals early—regular one-on-one check-ins to surface tension before it festers.
  • Align on vision and values—not just what you’re building, but how you’ll build it and why it matters.
  • Clarify succession expectations—is this person a partner, a long-term No. 2, or a potential future CEO? Say it.
  • Set realistic timelines—agree on milestones, but don’t expect magic overnight.
  • Communicate clearly to the org—so employees understand who does what and aren’t caught in the crossfire.
  • Hire for complementarity—choose a COO who fills your blind spots, not one who duplicates your strengths.

The founder–COO relationship is like a marriage with the pressure of Wall Street, venture capital, and 200 employees watching. When it works, it’s transformative. When it doesn’t, it’s messy, public, and expensive.


The Founder × Stage × COO Fit

So how do you know when and which type of COO to bring in? Here’s the decision logic:


  1. Startup + Visionary FounderNeeds an Executor or Mentor/Partner. Someone to turn chaos into motion without killing energy.
  2. Startup + Operator FounderMay not need a COO yet. If they do, it’s usually a domain specialist (MVP Functionalist) to cover blind spots.
  3. Scaling + Visionary FounderNeeds an Integrator or a Complement to gaps. Execution and people issues become bottlenecks.
  4. Scaling + Operator FounderMay need a Change Agent or Heir Apparent. The role becomes about transformation or succession.
  5. Mature Company + Visionary CEOThe COO role is succession-oriented (Heir Apparent) or complex integration (Hybrid).
  6. Mature Company + Operator CEOSometimes no COO is needed; the CEO already runs operations. In other cases, the COO is simply the next CEO waiting in line.


Takeaway

Hiring a COO isn’t about “offloading work.” It’s about admitting what kind of company you’re really building, and what kind of leader you are.


  • If you’re the spark but not the engine, you need an Executor.
  • If you’re a force of change but leave wreckage behind, you need a Relationship-Builder complement.
  • If you’re building for the long haul, sooner or later you need an Heir Apparent.


The best founders aren’t the ones who try to do it all. They’re the ones who know when to step aside—just enough—to let someone else make the company stronger.


Closing Thought

In Founders Keepers, I often say: what got you here won’t get you there. The founder’s job is to create possibility. The COO’s job is to turn possibility into performance.


The only real mistake is waiting until your company is already fraying before you decide which kind of COO you need. By then, the cost of waiting may be higher than you can afford.

share this

Related Articles

Related Articles

The Courage to Confront: How Real Leaders Balance Candor and Care
By Rich Hagberg December 16, 2025
(Part 2 of The Best Leaders Playbook — Building Trust Systems Series)
Integrity as an Innovation Strategy: Why Moral Clarity Drives Creativity, Not Just Compliance
By Rich Hagberg December 9, 2025
(Part 1 of The Best Leaders Playbook — Building Trust Systems Series)
Greatness Lies in the Contradictions: How the Best Leaders Integrate Opposites Instead of Choosing S
By Rich Hagberg December 2, 2025
The Leadership Tightrope If you lead long enough, you start to realize something uncomfortable: everything that makes you effective also threatens to undo you. Your drive becomes impatience. Your confidence becomes stubbornness. Your empathy turns into guilt. The longer you lead, the more you realize that the job isn’t about choosing one trait over another — it’s about learning to carry both. That’s what maturity looks like in leadership. It’s not balance. It’s tension well managed. The False Comfort of Either/Or Most leaders crave clarity. We want rules. Playbooks. Certainty. Should I be tough or kind? Decisive or collaborative? Visionary or practical? The insecure part of the brain hates contradiction. It wants the “right answer.” But leadership lives in the messy middle — the place where both truths exist, and neither feels comfortable. The best leaders aren’t either/or thinkers. They’re both/and navigators. A Story from the Field I once coached a CEO who told me, “I’m torn between holding people accountable and being empathetic.” I said, “Why do you think those are opposites?” He paused, then laughed. “Because it’s easier that way.” Exactly. It’s easier to pick a lane than to learn how to drive in two at once. He eventually realized the real question wasn’t which side to choose, but when and how to lean into each. He became known as “the fairest tough boss in the building.” That’s the magic of integration — toughness with tenderness, vision with realism, clarity with compassion. Why Paradox Feels So Hard Contradictions feel like hypocrisy when you haven’t made peace with your own complexity. If you believe you have to be one consistent version of yourself — confident, decisive, inspiring — then every moment of doubt feels like fraud. But the truth is, great leaders are contradictory because humans are contradictory. You can be grounded and ambitious, humble and proud, certain and still learning. The work is not to eliminate the tension — it’s to get comfortable feeling it. The Psychology Behind It Our brains love binaries because they make the world simple. But complexity — holding opposites — is the mark of advanced thinking. Psychologists call this integrative complexity — the ability to see multiple perspectives and blend them into a coherent approach. It’s not compromise; it’s synthesis. It’s saying, “Both are true, and I can move between them without losing my integrity.” That’s where wisdom lives — in the movement, not the answer. Funny But True A client once told me, “I feel like half monk, half gladiator.” I said, “Congratulations. That means you’re leading.” Because that’s what the job demands: peace and fight, compassion and steel. If you can’t hold both, you end up overusing one until it breaks you. The Cost of One-Dimensional Leadership We’ve all worked for the “results-only” leader — brilliant, efficient, and emotionally tone-deaf. And the “people-first” leader — kind, loyal, and allergic to accountability. Both are exhausting. Both create lopsided cultures. When leaders pick a single identity — visionary, disciplinarian, nurturer, driver — they lose range. They become caricatures of their strengths. True greatness comes from emotional range, not purity. The Paradox Mindset Here’s how integrative leaders think differently: They value principles over preferences. They can be decisive without being defensive. They know empathy isn’t weakness and toughness isn’t cruelty. They trade perfection for adaptability. They’re the ones who can zoom in and out — from the numbers to the people, from the details to the meaning — without losing coherence. They’re not consistent in behavior. They’re consistent in values. That’s the difference. How to Practice Both/And Thinking Spot your overused strength. The strength that’s hurting you most is the one you lean on too much. If you’re decisive, try listening longer. If you’re compassionate, try being direct faster. Ask, “What’s the opposite quality trying to teach me?” Impatience teaches urgency; patience teaches perspective. You need both. Invite your opposite. Bring someone onto your team who balances your extremes — not a mirror, a counterweight. Hold paradox out loud. Tell your team, “This decision has tension in it — and that’s okay.” Modeling that normalizes complexity for everyone else. A Moment of Self-Honesty I’ve spent decades watching leaders chase “clarity” like it’s peace. But peace doesn’t come from eliminating tension. It comes from trusting yourself inside it. Once you accept that leadership will always feel contradictory, you stop fighting it — and start flowing with it. You don’t need to be the calmest, toughest, or most visionary person in the room. You just need to be the one who can stay whole while the world pulls you in opposite directions. Your Challenge This Week When you catch yourself thinking, “Should I be X or Y?” — stop. Ask instead, “How can I be both?” Then practice it in one small moment. Be kind and firm. Bold and humble. Fast and thoughtful. That’s where growth hides — in the discomfort between two truths. Final Word The best leaders aren’t balanced. They’re integrated. They’ve stopped trying to erase their contradictions and started using them as fuel. They’ve learned that leadership isn’t about certainty. It’s about capacity — the capacity to hold complexity without losing your center. That’s not chaos. That’s mastery.
ALL ARTICLES