I contend the cost basis of a founder's ownership in shares of a company, public or private, are higher than the cost basis of non-founders.
From strictly a common stock price, or an option exercise price, founders' cost bases likely are lower. Why? They've simply been around longer, like at inception.
But, when you add to the mix what they may have contributed by way of tangible or intangible assets (including sweat equity, opportunity cost, and bringing to fruition the dream/vision), the cost bases rise.
As a result, non-founders do not have as much incentive to quantitatively and qualitatively optimize the outcome.
N.B. In the context of the above post, I consider Peter Culpepper a founder-type.