At the same time, most of these now-former entrepreneurs find it difficult to stop engaging in business activities altogether and simply let the rest of their lives pass them by without the responsibilities they’ve shouldered until now. In this short article, I would like to describe the paths and opportunities I see after leaving a company, what characterizes them, and what consequences are associated with them.
Generally speaking, a distinction can be made between the “transitioner” and the “withdrawer,” though these are rarely found in their “pure forms.” What distinguishes these two basic types, and what are their specific characteristics?
In this context, a co-partner can be described as a classic “transitioner.”
As a co-partner—meaning not all company shares have been sold—the previous owner experiences the least change overall. The entrepreneurial risk and the associated responsibility, as well as the social standing within the company and its community, remain unchanged, as does the share in the company’s profits. Since the individual continues to be actively involved in the company, the time commitment involved is often similar to what it was before. One should also not underestimate the latent potential for conflict with the new owner/CEO regarding strategies, direction, and corporate culture, as very few former owners are able to completely step back from strategic issues.
The selling entrepreneur also remains closely connected to the company, making his expertise and experience available to the company in the future as a consultant.
He continues to work within the company, thereby securing not only social status but also an additional income. However, the workload remains—albeit not to the same extent as before—and there is also latent potential for conflict between the new owner/managing director and the former owner/advisor, as the former owner sometimes finds it difficult to let go completely in this role. A key step in the “exit” process, however, has already been completed through the relinquishment of corporate ties to the company.
The investor embodies a complete detachment from one’s own company while still maintaining an interest in and involvement with entrepreneurial activities.
The investor continues to share in the company’s success without being personally involved in day-to-day operations or assuming responsibility for them. The time commitment is minimal, and the resulting freedom is correspondingly great. The investor uses his or her entrepreneurial experience to deploy it profitably through targeted investments. Due to the low fungibility of the acquired shares, investments must always be viewed as long-term and, because of the generally limited scope for influence, also entail corresponding risks.
The private investor demonstrates the least entrepreneurial involvement after exiting.
The retiree no longer has any connection to the previous company or any other business and thus enjoys complete freedom to pursue a new direction in any field. While this may sound very appealing and desirable on the one hand, it can also have a downside in the retiree’s personal perception. What this means is that the entrepreneur’s previous “social status” is lost, which can lead to fears of loss. The retiree typically uses this newfound freedom for active leisure pursuits, pursuing hobbies, and maintaining social contacts.
In summary, it can be said that, depending on their personality and mindset, every “retiree” must find their own path after selling the business in order to enjoy their retirement happily and with personal satisfaction. One of the scenarios described here—or a combination of them—will serve as a guide.
