CS Rahul N. Sinnarka
When a promoter decides to take a company public, the most difficult transition, quite a time, is rarely financial. It is psychological.
An initial public offering is often positioned as a capital-raising milestone, which is true, but in substance, it also represents a profound shift in how a company is owned, governed and led. The moment a company lists, it moves from being an extension of the promoter’s will to an institution accountable to a diverse set of public stakeholders.
For promoters, this transition demands a shift from ownership-driven leadership to stewardship-driven governance. Many companies falter not due to weak business fundamentals, but because promoters, at times, struggle to think objectively once the company ceases to be ‘mine’ and becomes ‘ours’.
Before listing, promoters enjoy speed, discretion and unilateral decision-making. After listing, every action is scrutinised through the lens of public interest. Capital now – also belongs to public shareholders, decisions influence market confidence, behaviour shapes governance reputation and even personal conduct can affect stock prices. In this environment, emotional decision-making, informality and promoter privilege evolve from tolerated traits into systemic risks.
The core shift required is from founder control to institutional trust. Public markets reward predictability, discipline and transparency. Promoters must consciously move away from intuitive decision-making, family-first appointments, informal capital movements, selective disclosures and related-party comfort. In their place, markets expect process-led decisions, empowered boards, arm’s length transactions and equal treatment of all shareholders.
This shift is often difficult because of emotional ownership. For many promoters, the company represents decades of sacrifice and personal identity. Legacy thinking – the belief that what worked for decades will continue to work – becomes dangerous in public markets. Additionally, promoters may tend to underestimate the influence of institutional investors, proxy advisory firms, regulators and public narrative, even when they retain majority shareholding.
Another common misjudgment is treating governance as a compliance obligation rather than a value driver. Markets, however, price governance quality as a proxy for risk. Strong governance reduces uncertainty, attracts long-term capital and sustains valuation beyond listing day.
Post-IPO, promoters must consciously mend their approach to decision-making. The board must evolve from a statutory requirement into a strategic asset. Independent directors are not obstacles but safeguards, providing objective oversight and institutional conscience. Dissent should be encouraged, not suppressed, as it often reveals blind spots before they escalate into crises.
A clean separation between personal and corporate interests is non-negotiable. Informal withdrawals, undocumented transactions, preferential treatment of group entities and loosely structured related-party dealings erode credibility quickly. Public markets are unforgiving of the logic that ‘this is how it has always been done’.
Talent strategy also requires recalibration. Pre-IPO companies often run on loyalty; post-IPO companies run on capability. Promoters must be willing to professionalise leadership, induct experienced external CEOs, CFOs and CXOs, and make difficult transitions where long-serving or family executives are not scale-ready. The promoter’s role gradually shifts from operator to custodian of vision and culture.
Transparency becomes a permanent operating condition. Quarterly results scrutiny, analyst calls, public questioning and disclosure-driven communication are no longer optional. Silence, ambiguity or selective sharing may be often interpreted as weakness or more worse – intent, neither of which the market rewards.
Equally important is resisting the temptation of short-term optics. Public pressure can push promoters to manage numbers rather than businesses. The better path lies in investing despite near-term margin pressure, communicating long-term strategy clearly and avoiding aggressive accounting or cosmetic restructuring. Ultimately, promoters who successfully make this psychological shift unlock meaningful long-term benefits. Companies gain access to cheaper capital, valuations sustain beyond listing day, institutional investors stay invested, employee confidence strengthens and brand credibility deepens. More importantly, the promoter’s legacy transforms from founder of a company to architect of an enduring institution. Trust, once built, compounds faster than profits.
The market does not merely list companies – it lists mindsets. An IPO is not a finish line but the beginning of permanent public examination. Promoters who recognise this early and consciously shift from control to accountability, build organisations that outlast cycles and, often, themselves. Those who don’t – may still list. But will they endure?
