Every Venture Needs a Heartbeat
I often hear people question whether board meetings are helpful or if attending them provides any real value. Vinod Khosla is famous for challenging their usefulness, as illustrated in this quote from TechCrunch:
"I'm not a big fan of governance; I think if you engage as a team member with a founder, you have much more influence than if you're sitting on a board and voting," he said. "Other VCs accuse us of being very active and very engaged — but the flip side of it is they vote on boards. We don’t — no matter how important an issue."
Khosla added, "It isn't the VC's job to sit on a board and vote... there’s a hard line you don’t cross, which is don’t make founders or management do things they don’t want to do by voting." Instead, he spends his time where he believes it counts: "I spend more time doing decks for presentations for our founders than almost anybody I know."
I understand his perspective, but I disagree.
First, I agree that there is often greater value in being a coach and advisor—working alongside founders on tough issues—than simply attending a board meeting. I also agree that forcing founders to do things they don’t want to by leveraging board votes is a mistake. Founders live and breathe their company’s challenges, spending countless hours tackling critical issues, while board members contribute in focused bursts. Insisting that they follow your direction can not only be misguided but also risks undermining their autonomy and momentum.
However, what is often overlooked is that board meetings are the heartbeat of a venture. They require the founding team to provide a comprehensive update on their progress—covering everything from key metrics and financials to product updates, market positioning, challenges, and the team's vision for the future. This rigorous preparation, which includes reporting on key milestones and challenges, drives accountability, alignment, and a sense of purpose.
The very act of preparing for a board meeting compels the team to address the most critical aspects of their business—without delay or excuses. Like a theatrical performance, "the show must go on." That level of commitment—ensuring everything is ready for "opening night"—is vital.
Also, for that commitment to be meaningful, the board must be respected, engaged, and valuable to the venture. If the VCs and other investors aren’t part of the board, the team won’t care about “opening night” anyway.
In my experience, without this regular cadence, urgency fades, progress stalls and the team's energy dissipates. The board meeting creates a rhythm, a pulse that pushes the venture forward, fostering rigor, focus, and collective commitment. Just as in humans, without a heartbeat or with an irregular one, a venture will die.
So, while there is wisdom in being a trusted coach rather than a directive authority, let’s not underestimate the value of that heartbeat—the board meeting—that ensures that everyone is ready to perform at their best.
Your Venture Coach,
Norman
I’m with you on this one, Norman, but I also understand where Khosla is coming from. There have been a number of occasions where overconfident investors pushed distract-able founders into startup doom, usually be investors who themselves were founders with a successful exit in a different type of business (success in one sector often seems to lead to the belief that the own experiences are universally valid for any type of business and in any sector, which isn’t the case). And it’s really the founder’s job to run the business, not the investors, and to achieve great things the ability to act unilaterally and quickly is often critical (which is also why solo founders are generally more successful than co-founders). Also, early stage startups rarely have anything like a “board”.
On the other side, the hands-off approach to governance has also delivered a number of startup failures where founders used the investment money for personal enrichment (such as buying a mansion) while running the business into the ground and where the investors were left empty handed. Not completely surprising, seeing that a shockingly large number of founders I met see investors as little more than walking check books, and once the check has been handed over they essentially have fulfilled their purpose. So, clearly, some extend of governance is necessary.
Board meetings are very useful as cycling snapshots of a business’ progress, challenges and issues and a record of decisions made. As you wrote, it forces founders to face all aspects of their business, but it’s also a chance to get on record agreement from a founder’s business partners (which is what investors really are) on major decisions, which may seem overly bureaucratic at first but can be life saving in case of later disagreements. They really serve a purpose (also from a legal perspective). And it’s really up to the founder to use them and make them useful.
Also, as a founder, if I accept an investment then I enter into a partnership with someone who will own a part of my business and who will be a stakeholder in my business’ affairs (i.e. in how I run the business), while at the same time I’ll become a stakeholder in their business’ affairs (i.e., to make sure the investment is returned at the point of exit). For this to work, both sides have to be on the same page, which is reflected by being part of the board.
Yes, starting a business is a bold and careful process.