I haven't done any kind of exhaustive research, but in general, if you look at industries across the board, it's the ones who AREN'T being run by "interchangable managers" that seem to be the most successful in the long run. I am always concerned when I see a favorite company toss a founder aside to plug in a Rent-A-CEO.

The "Sculley era" at Apple is one obvious example. Another would be the corporate takeover of companies like Pacific Lumber, which prior to the takeover, had an excellent and profitable reputation for stewardship of resources. Not so much now. Given time, I could come up with plenty of others. Think of those excellent boatbuilders you have mentioned in the past.

Think of companies off the top of your head with reputations for long-term quality. How many are run by a founder? It's no coincidence that in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged," the "good" companies were headed by strong-minded and skilled individuals, while the "bad" companies were headed by boards, committees, professional managers, and lobbyists.

The best businessmen know well that the annual "bottom line" isn't the be-all and end-all of success. Still having a "bottom line" in twenty years counts for something, too, and often the techniques for the latter are considerably different than those for the former.

There are exceptions to this rule in both directions, of course, but IMO these are still exceptions.

In space companies I helped found, or observed the founding of years ago, I witnessed the "Harvard MBA" mistake more than once. This basically was the idea that having a Harvard MBA-type in charge of a lot of things would impress investors. It didn't impress investors that much, and usually they screwed things up royally. In retrospect, this shouldn't have been surprising--many investment "angels" came up from the Silicon Valley garage, and knew damn well where success really comes from.