Conceptual illustration of an entrepreneur facing a choice between two paths: control (patents) and execution (market speed).

Control vs. Execution: Navigating the Entrepreneurial Tightrope

Samir D’Costa in Business & Economy August 2025 • 4 min read.

"How founders can make smarter decisions about building a startup by knowing how to balance control and agility."

The world of startups is a high-stakes game of innovation, where brilliant ideas battle for survival. But having a groundbreaking concept is only half the battle. Entrepreneurs face an ongoing dilemma: how much should they focus on tightly controlling their innovation versus rapidly executing their business plan? This tension, between safeguarding intellectual property and quickly capturing market share, can make or break a fledgling company.

Consider the story of the telephone. While Alexander Graham Bell is celebrated for securing patents, his competitor, Elisha Gray, prioritized rapid commercialization. The contrasting approaches highlight the critical question at the heart of every startup: should you build a fortress around your idea, or sprint to the marketplace?.

This article explores that question, diving into new research that examines the entrepreneur's choice between "control" (securing intellectual property and preventing imitation) and "execution" (quickly developing and scaling the business). We'll unpack the factors that influence this decision, revealing how it shapes a startup's trajectory and ultimate success. Whether you're a seasoned founder or an aspiring innovator, understanding the dynamics of control and execution is essential for navigating the unpredictable world of entrepreneurship.

Control vs. Execution: A Founder's Balancing Act

Conceptual illustration of an entrepreneur facing a choice between two paths: control (patents) and execution (market speed).

The traditional view suggests that entrepreneurs should maximize their ability to protect their innovation. However, it's not always the right answer. Entrepreneurs face constraints of time, money, and manpower, forcing them to be selective in which avenues they pursue to achieve success. This can be conceptually broken down into one of two options.

On one hand is control. This involves solidifying the original innovation and creating various barriers to entry. This may involve some of the following:

Securing patents to legally protect the invention.
Implementing non-compete agreements with employees.
Using trade secrets to protect key processes.
Creating regulatory hurdles for potential competitors.

Alternatively, companies may focus on execution. This focuses on popularizing their invention through reaching out to customers and the broader marketplace. By prioritizing this approach, companies may forgo control for a number of reasons. One reason is cost, as both time and money need to be expended to enforce any of the mechanisms to control their innovation.

Making the Choice: A Path Forward

The decision between prioritizing control and prioritizing execution isn't easy. The right answer depends on the innovator, the resources available, and the landscape in which the new company will be competing. As new technologies continue to change the business landscape, the approach that companies take may be an important factor in whether or not they survive.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: 10.2139/ssrn.2946078, Alternate LINK

Title: Control Versus Execution: Endogenous Appropriability And Entrepreneurial Strategy

Journal: SSRN Electronic Journal

Publisher: Elsevier BV

Authors: Kenny Ching, Joshua S. Gans, Scott Stern

Published: 2017-01-01

Everything You Need To Know

What is the fundamental trade-off entrepreneurs face between 'control' and 'execution' when building a startup?

Entrepreneurs often face a critical decision between prioritizing "control" and "execution". "Control" involves securing intellectual property through patents, non-compete agreements, trade secrets, and regulatory hurdles. "Execution", on the other hand, focuses on rapidly developing and scaling the business to capture market share.

What are some concrete methods a startup can use to establish greater 'control' over its innovation?

Focusing on "control" can be achieved through several methods. These include securing patents to legally protect the invention, implementing non-compete agreements with employees to prevent them from joining competitors, using trade secrets to protect key processes, and creating regulatory hurdles to make it difficult for potential competitors to enter the market.

What does it mean for a company to prioritize 'execution' over 'control', and what are the potential reasons for doing so?

When a company prioritizes "execution" over "control", it focuses on quickly popularizing their invention by reaching out to customers and expanding into the marketplace. This approach involves a trade-off, as the company may forgo efforts to establish barriers to entry, such as securing patents, in favor of faster market penetration and growth. One key reason for prioritizing "execution" is cost since time and money need to be expended to enforce any of the mechanisms to control their innovation.

What key factors should an entrepreneur consider when deciding whether to prioritize 'control' or 'execution' in their startup strategy?

The choice between prioritizing "control" and "execution" depends on several factors, including the innovator's capabilities, available resources, and the competitive environment of the industry. The right approach can be an important factor in determining whether or not companies survive as technologies change the business landscape. It also requires considering the long-term implications of both strategies on market positioning and competitive advantage.

Can you explain the historical example of Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray in the context of 'control' versus 'execution', and what implications does it highlight for startups?

The story of Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray illustrates the difference between "control" and "execution". Bell focused on securing patents, while Gray prioritized rapid commercialization. The implication is that while patents offer legal protection, speed to market can also be a significant advantage. This highlights the complex trade-offs entrepreneurs must consider when deciding how to allocate their resources and strategic focus.