I never called myself the CEO of Viaweb. I just used my actual job title, which was president. It seemed silly to talk about someone being Chief Executive Officer of a company with 20 people. But that was over 10 years ago; fashions may have changed.
Don't top academics avoid titles in the US? See for example how many top academics have "Dr." or "Prof." in the title of their home page.
I suppose the impression is that an academic would only fall back on his/her title because he/she is not particularly well known and needs some way to impress others. It looks bad.
The difference between academics and business is that "Dr." and "Prof." are appointed titles, while CEO is self-given without having to meet any prerequisites or requirements.
This might not be true in the humanities. I've had quite a few students repeat the idea that they must call be "Dr.", since the title "Professor" is reserved for lowly grad students. They tend to hear this from literature professors, so non-science fields might have different customs.
If someone is calling grad students "Professor," then they are abusing the term. A grad student who is teaching is an instructor.
Something that I didn't appreciate until I was in grad school was that not all professors are even "Professor." Becoming a full professor is a big deal. An "Assistant Professor" is generally someone who has a tenure-track position, but does not have tenure yet. "Associate Professor" is for someone who has tenure. "Professor" is for someone who has tenure, and has contributed enough to the school through research and teaching to earn being a full professor.
The person teaching the class can be legitimately called "professor". It signifies their position as "that guy teaching the class", not their academic rank.
Similarly, "that guy commanding the ship" is called "captain" regardless of actual rank [1].
I just checked the dictionary and Wikipedia. While both allow for "that guy teaching the class" to be considered a professor, that doesn't seem to be the standard custom. Both stressed the formality of the title, which is the custom I'm familiar with.
These self-appointed titles formulated as acronyms, C[insert domain]O, is the quintessential cue that capitalists are self-important militarists. Of course I mean militarists only in the lightest (and perhaps hyperbolic) terms for how a large corporation organizes their positions (occupations) of power internally and behave or affect some group(s) of society.
Internally, most notable positions of power are denoted by their domain of command then rank (or title), highest obviously being an 'officer.' Externally the company as a whole will only act on its interests while engaging a so-called 'threat' in a 'fight or flight' fashion. I often forget how young capitalism really is, and while this characteristic is certainly less apparent in smaller organizations it is the 'de facto' operative standard in how larger corporations conduct their-self in the market.
Every friend of mine training to be a doctor resents the implication that becoming a doctor isn't an achievement. They're sacrificing more for their title than most entrepreneurs sacrifice for theirs.
The impression I've gotten from the PhDs in my dept. is that the title is something they expect and appreciate as a nod to their years of work, but, by the same token, anyone you might compare with them based on merit probably is also a Dr making it useless to brag.
Anyone can technically become a CEO for $89. It only has meaning when attached the success of companies.
It's different for academics because getting a PhD is just the beginning. A top academic would probably not consider it the most important achievement of his/her career.
A top academic is well known and everyone will automatically assume that he/she has a PhD and a respectable position at his/her university, so mentioning the title is redundant.
In general, when you find an academic type without a PhD, it's even more impressive. Read about Google Eliezer Yudkowsky, and tell me you aren't even more impressed when you find out his educational background.
I believe it's because of the sales process: a salesperson wants to know if they're talking to a person that can make a purchasing decision, and also wants to give the customer they're dealing with the impression that they're more influential than the actually are. So there's a natural tendency for both sides to overstate their roles.
But then once the guys in sales get more impressive sounding title, everybody wants one and thus, title inflation.
Define "worse" in this case. It's an irritation at worst, and it indicates that being an entrepreneur is starting to become something kids are interested in. I'd deem that a good change, however obnoxious we cool hands might find it.
Worse in that people are falling into illusions of grandeur. I'd say it's more about being honest with yourself, and others, about your work and accomplishments. Embellishing is fine, but you do have to admit that it's gotten to a pretty ridiculous point these days, especially in the web world.
I'd also say that being more realistic and grounded will drive you more to achieve that level of success people often believe they've reached in their illusions. If you're a CEO of a revolutionary web 2.0 company operating in stealth mode, and you don't see any traction, you'll be more likely to give up because reality isn't falling inline with the ridiculous expectations you've set in place.
Worse in the sense that its diminishing the value of being an entrepreneur and CEO. For example, if PHD's were being handed out to kids a 40 year old's MBA is now depreciated. Same goes for the status and worth of the word and title CEO / Entrepreneur.
Was there ever an inherent value in either? Entrepreneur shouldn't be a term thrown around to sound impressive, like doctor is, because calling yourself an entrepreneur requires a lot less. Similarly, CEO should be a term that's no more impressive than your company. So somebody calling themselves the CEO of a two-man company doesn't make Steve Jobs any less impressive, because it's not two CEOs, it's Apple and Smallfry.
I'll say! Real CEOs should be 14 years old, like Ben Casnocha back when.
(And yes, his company, Comcate, is a real company with employees and everything.)
Though I do agree with the general principle - it's why I decided that the title of Research Fellow at the Singularity Institute was more honorable, even though I could easily get something with "Director" in it.
But there really is a flipside; not everyone gets the countersignalling. I met with a Congressperson once who told me that if I wanted to meet with Congresspeople, I should have gotten a bigger title - the phrasing was something along the lines of "Executive Directors get into the office, Research Fellows wait outside" (said in a friendly and helpful way).
Similarly, at a gathering of VCs, someone said to me afterward: "When you introduced yourself as a Research Fellow, I thought you were just a scientist."
I guess in the larger world, people really do go around judging by titles, even if from in here it seems like obviously easily fakeable fluff.
It's hard to define a concrete point where you aren't being pompous by calling yourself a CEO, but having more employees (or at least contractors) than yourself is probably a good start. I find it a little depressing when I'm reviewing the resume of someone applying for an engineering position and I see their first job experience listed as CEO or CTO of X, especially if the date range is before graduating from high school. "Founder" seems like a much more legitimate, scalable and reasonable option.
IMO (an I've been on both sides of this, having started a small company in my 20's, and now as a hiring manager at a startup), "owner" is even more appropriate.
Even "Founder", to me, seems to imply a certain amount of effort was involved above and beyond the base paperwork.
If your company exists more on paper than in practice, skip the titles and just list yourself as Owner or "Self-Employed".
Many many many many people of all ages have managed to generate some cash flow from their determination and inventiveness. It's no great accomplishment, in the relative scheme of things, to have managed to generate a couple hundred thousand dollars in above the line revenue.
A Founder or CEO type title is, again IMO, appropriate when you have created something that has started to take on some life of its own, and might have a slim chance of continuance in your absence or departure. Or, when you have managed to convince some non-relative to give you a 7 figure investment.
I just dug out some old business cards from my little venture in the 90's. I just listed the company name, what we did, my name and contact info. The legal paperwork listed me as President or CEO, IIRC, but in the day-to-day operations I was just the guy that ran the joint. The company managed to do a few $MM in revenue, net me a bit o' cash and employ a couple of people besides myself.
I think it's safe to call yourself a CEO when you're in charge of managing the engine of revenue; that is, a system whereby you can have your executive team hire someone, give them an instruction set to execute daily, and have money flowing back into the company.
If this isn't happening then it's probably better to call yourself a founder, director, chief instigator, etc. Although it really depends on the culture of the people you're selling to and/or trying to raise investment from.
Yes. It also makes more sense to start off with Founder, because it can be hard to predict what role you'll end up in (with growth, raising capital, etc.)
Young kids use the term CEO because it gives them a sense of importance and officialness. There is nothing sinister or inflated about it, it's just kind of like playing house or pretending. You play the part you dream of one day being.
When I was younger I remember starting "companies" and trying to be really official about it even though I had zero experience and didn't know shit. Who cares? It was fun.
One partner in an iPhone company I was involved in who was over forty, after manipulating his way into it (he had only "connections" but no technical skills) went behind everyones back and named himself CEO on the website, despite the fact we were not incorporated, had no business contract (another mistake), had nothing but a DBA, no finished products, customers, or a revenue stream.
Very sad. I'm glad I got out a couple weeks before hand.
Was just talking to David Hornik briefly about this today. I think it's fine. I wish I was smart enough and grew up in a good enough background to aspire to be CEO at 16. The thing to know is to work hard to live up to the title and be a GREAT CEO.
One thing that I want to tell them is to keep their eyes open and explore new interests. I hated the idea of business because I thought it was evil, but college opened my eyes to the startup world because I kept an open-mind and tried out different things. Since then it's become a big part of my life and I love it. =)
The term CEO has, largely, lost all of its meaning. CEO is a specific role within a company; it is not an umbrella term meaning "person in charge of things". It makes me cringe every time I turn on the television, read an article, or listen to somebody speak and hear the term CEO used to mean "person who isn't a cubical drone".
This is especially true if you are the ONLY person in your company. Saying you are the chief executive officer at least implies that there are other officers.
Truth is, in a few years we won’t be teens anymore. We will no longer have our foot in the door just because our age is impressive.
Yeah. I sometimes think about what the entrepreneurial funnel for these seemingly uber bright kids looks like. I've always felt that each additional year x% of kids that looked like the next (insert some top name) drop into the average John.
And of course, every year many average Johns that did not grow up as "CEOs" turn into CEOs.
I've learned my lessons over the years. No more any kind of story around me. If there is a story, it should be about my start-up. Of course, I am also 22 now but you'll find out the reporters' infatuation with age and hyping up an individual never really ends.
There are some folks that actually excel from this sort of publicity. They end up writing a book or two that actually sells. I realized I'm not one of them and self-publicity is mainly a distraction at least at this point in my life.
I'm 19 and in the process of looking for exceptional talents my age to work with. As I go through people, I find that publicity is never a real indicator of somebody's success. Most people who're really good at what they do never learn to promote themselves; a lot of mediocre people develop the skills and take advantage of media laziness to get mentions.
I've never liked people that pull age. I remember when I was thirteen pretending to be in high school because I thought that high school was a big age on the Internet; within a year I'd started to lie about being a college student because I didn't want to be treated differently than the people I talked to. As a result, when I see people whose web pages brand themselves as HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT first and CEO second and don't list any real accomplishments, I feel a sort of sneer, because I know there're just as many people that age who're quietly learning to do things till they become prodigies at the age of 25.
It is fun, though, when somebody discovers your age and fawns over you like you're some little darling prodigy. Not a wholesome fun, more like a smirking "You care more about my age than what I've done?" Some people do it because they think it's polite, but other people sincerely think that young people must be the smartest people on the planet and young people that know better laugh.
Makes sense. Though as I said in an earlier post, there are some folks that are young, can talk a great story, get a book contract and end up making a decent $ from their writing. I don't see much wrong with that approach though I know some have a problem with that.
Just like you, I did not tell my age to clients when I was 14-15. But that was more out of fear. Ones that found out before giving me the project(via sites like rentacoder/elance) would never pick me. So I quit sharing my age until later into the project once I'd knocked their socks off. Ironically, I was able to provide a better service to clients back then than I can today. Today I care wayyy more about money/ROI. Back then I only cared about the actual work. Money was almost zero motivation.
As a writer myself, I always thought that was kind of an ass-backwards approach. Writing a story about being young is the cheapest and easiest story to write. So props to the people who manage it, but I don't necessarily see that as a success.
I find, funnily enough, that the people who succeed the most past being young are the people who find passion in what they do at an early age. So embrace what you love! That's what you'll find it easiest to grow at.
If a 16-yr old CEO has the social acuity, business acumen, and maturity of a 45-yr old CEO, then major kudos to them.
I met a CEO and member of the Young Presidents' Organization (YPO) several years ago. In the brief time I knew him, he inspired me. I know it's a cliche but his attitude was infectious and amazing. Every year, the YPO picks a different city to party and network in. That is the club that you might aspire to be part of.
Strict requirements. Responsible for full operation of a qualifying (by revenue) corporation or division by age 45. Yes, they require at least 50 employees (which may be more tailored to traditional business)
>If a 16-yr old CEO has the social acuity, business acumen, and maturity of a 45-yr old CEO, then major kudos to them.
That would be a horrible 45-year-old CEO. If you don't learn something in those thirty years that can't be applied to give you an edge on a sixteen-year-old, you're doing something wrong.
Age deserves more respect, imo. It's extremely unlikely that any sixteen year old would be a businessperson than a forty-five year old.
I can see how it got lost in translation but by no means I was implying that the 45-year old CEO was horrible (e.g. it's very very unlikely or even impossible that a 16-yr old CEO will ever be equivalent to a veteran CEO - e.g. 16-yr old CEO is a near mockery of the title). Much like what happened when they started giving away Green Berets to non-Green Berets.
It's a simple form you fill out and pay a few bucks, and bam, you are now the CEO of an incorporated startup.
Personally I'd feel weird calling myself a CEO unless my company was making ~60K(basically a salary) or I had some funding to at least prove my legitimacy.
Agreed. I incorporated at 15. It took less than 30mins.
My advice is use the CEO tag if you're following a strategy to get stories around it which you'll use to achieve another end(hopefully making money somehow). Don't use it just to feed your ego.
I find the use of C-level titles in a very early startup fairly pretentious. I try to avoid using it and just call myself "co-founder" - that is what my business cards say.
However, we do also get feedback that we need to give ourselves business titles so that people know who they are dealing with. Last night I was submitting a slide deck for a presentation I'm doing at an investor conference in a couple of days. The last slide I did was "The Team" slide. The team is currently just me and my co-founder. I actually wanted to put "business guy" and "techie girl" as our titles, but its a fairly strait-laced conference so in the end I put CEO and CTO.
I did feel a bit awkward doing that, knowing that it's just the two of us. I am positively cringing now after reading that article!
Business Guy and Techie Girl might be a little TOO informal, even in casual settings, but I think you were on the right track there.
You might want to try something like: Dick - Runs Operations, Sales and Business Development. Jane - Responsible for software, technology and server farms.
If either of you have some past experience to draw on, maybe add that in too: Dick - Formerly performed similar duties for BigCo. Jane - Previously scaled operations for WebCo.
How does "partner" sound? Same a co-founder? Or more like someone climbing up the ladder in a law firm? English is not my mother tongue which is why I am wondering...
I would use "business partner" in conversation, but if I saw "partner" on a business card I would think of some kind of law firm (pretty near the top of the ladder actually ;) )
My father did little when it came to marketing (he mostly sold office buildings), but one of his few lessons about it was that one should never advertise their product as "exclusive". If something really is exclusive, people will start using that description all by themselves - your product will be in demand but have a very limited and controlled supply. If it's not, advertising it as "exclusive" just sounds cheap.
I find this similar to the use of the title CEO in start-ups. If you advertise that as your title, there is no reason you're doing that other than vanity. If there's one of you, you're not the CEO - you're just the guy doing things. If there's three of you, then you're just one of the guys who makes decisions. If there's twenty of you, you have a proper corporate governance structure, and all you do is manage and plan, then maybe call yourself a CEO.
If you're really concerned about your title between the sizes of three and twenty employees, you're worried about the wrong thing. If you really need one for some reason, call yourself Founder (if you founded the company) or President (if you have the ultimate decision-making power and preside over decisions). If you don't do either of those things, put the words "Senior" or "Director of" in front of what you actually do and speak like you've got some authority.
It's just like the word authentic. When I see a restaurant with "authentic" in the byline I avoid it. If they have to call themself authentic than chances are they aren't. Authenticity is achieved by x-factor and word of mouth.
When I ran my small company my title was owner. There was only one employee so it was obvious who "found" it. And sinced I financed it it was me who "owned" it.
At my startup we didn't take CXO titles until we started talking to investors. Then it was basically expected. People on the other side of the table need to know who they are talking to in terms of corporate responsibility. I don't think that the title necessarily reflects the revenue status or anything like that, rather it is an expectation of responsibility, regardless of whether the company is at the stage where you actually act in that capacity yet.
C-level executive does mean something to people executives at large corporations, but calling yourself a CEO on your webpage/business card won't actually make you a CEO for anyone who understands that. If your resume doesn't say P&L responsibility for >X millions in revenue, don't throw around the term CEO because you will come across as a braggart. President or founder are much more accurate descriptions for what most startup founders call the "CEO" position.
"However, I cringe when I hear the title “CEO” used lightly. To me, it conveys a lack of humility and a desperate call for attention."
Lacking humility and making desperate calls for attention? High school is all about lacking humility and making desperate calls for attention. Calling yourself the CEO of your personal non-incorporated company would be par for the course, not a shocking breach of decorum.
I can't think its much different than my having pretended to be a wizard doing magic on the occasional weekend night.
I think that the sad part about this is that teenager's imaginations have slipped to the level where the geeks among them now play at being things that actually exist.*
Kids these days...
*= Although I am a lisp programmer awash in a C of embedded systems guys (read: warriors), so pretending to a wizard and saying a bunch of mumbo-jumbo incantations that only I understood (and then blasting my enemies with fireball!) may have been some sort of pseudo-apprenticeship.
The only time I use the term CEO in my title is when I feel as if I have to convey my leading role in the company over giving the impression that I'm an everyday employee. This normally only happens over e-mail and with people that don't really know me or my company.
Finally a teenager humble enough to address the ad nauseam idea that teenagers can be entrepreneurs to. The media (most esp. major media outlets) have been exploiting this topic ever since they finally acknowledged the internet as a valid 'media contender.'
A teenager with an entrepreneurial spirit is rare as is and perhaps even paradoxical in the most stereotypical case, but a teenager disciplined and willful enough to build a business (web-site/service) attractive enough to sell and humble enough to remind us they still have a lot to learn is probably one in a million.
I don't mean to swing on this kid's nuts, I'm merely trying to make the point that a majority of early-blooming entrepreneurs wearing fancy acronyms/job-titles assume they know too much too soon and have a hard time adapting their business and their ego when X takes a turn for the worse.
