Question about Founder Role Post-Acquisition
I'm currently working at an investment/venture arm of a large business. Our group is looking to acquire a smaller company, primarily for synergies with an existing portco and for its IP. For some reason my manager keeps insisting that the founder becomes an employee of our company post-acquisition, even if his company becomes an operating subsidiary of the portco. Founder is also the one who built the company. Manager is not explaining the rationale / strategy behind this idea. Is there some risk for the founder to be head of his own company, that would be mitigated for him if he is an employee of our company?
Also not seeing why founder would want to be an employee of our company post-acquisition, as he could just spend his time building something in a different market.
Would the rationale be something like: Google / Google Ventures acquires a company like Wavii, which was created by a sole founder. They seemingly acquired this for its tech, IP and other financial benefits etc. and then closed down the website and phone app, but continued to benefit from the Wavii IP/ technology in other internal divisions. This seems to be a fairly common acquisition play in the tech world.
Then Wavii founder became part of the Google staff for 3 years post-acquisition based on his LinkedIn description. I'd imagine this may be some formality as part of a retention/non-compete agreement, but would there be some other rationale?