Bottleneck CEOs

I was reading about some(successful and failed) start-ups when this phrase hit me. Bottleneck CEOs - CEOs who become the bottleneck and stifle the growth of a company when it has a greater scope to make a mark in the industry and go beyond. And this is especially true in the case of start-ups. There are companies whose growth is hampered because the founder-CEOs wouldn't , and couldn't, let someone else take the role and responsibility of a few critical areas in the company even when they themselves cannot do it. They want to do it themselves, even though they have to re-invent the wheel to learn the whole process.

For example, these founder(s) CEOs wouldn't let a professional(say, an MBA) take care of the finances or a new area of business or a new product. We can't completely argue against it as the founder(s) have a greater sense of ownership and responisiblity towards the company than any employee. But, if ones wishes for the good of the company, one has to let go. If he is the person who took the path less-travelled, then he has to do that again and again.

Take the example of Google, Larry Page and Sergei Brin let Eric Schmidt be the CEO and take the company ahead - this has been argued that Eric really doesn't have a say but is just the spokesperson. Now whatever be the case, Eric Schmidt has been entrusted to run the company while Page&Brin are taking care of the technology to take Google ahead, and the triumvirate has been astoudingly successful.

Why can't all founder(s) let go of a few things when it is absolutely required to?
Agreed that you are the owner, but you wouldn't know how high it can fly until you let go. Don't just be a founder, be a leader too.