I have seen the effect a "hanging on" CEO has twice now, upfront and close, and in both cases the company he founded cratered. In one case the CEO had the skill set but was paranoid about not making every decision so eventually the control issue strangled the company. In the second case the founder had no experience but had a vision. Unfortunately his vision, as tested by users, was completely rejected, ie., the tests twice showed the concept would not sell. The CEO could not separate his self worth from his vision and decided to continue down the same path. The BoD, who also had not applicable experience as individuals, could not accept the fact the founder could be wrong so they continued to back him. End result was a product that was not even launched it was so bad.
I think founder's face a really gut wrenching decision of what matters more - you in the CEO role or the company's survival, growth and successful exit? In both cases above what mattered more was their own self identity, which turned out to be short lived. In the latter case the reasoning the founder used to remain CEO was the same list of exceptions quoted above. My rebuttal was "so you are willing to risk the investor's money based on the exception and not on what maximizes the ability of the company to succeed". Sad situation.
Re VCs, the standing joke is that the most valuable function of the VC is to replace the CEO. Ouch.