
There is no such thing as a CEO of pre-product startup. Get off of it. - jaf12duke
http://www.humbledmba.com/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-ceo-at-a-startup
======
MediaSquirrel
It sounds to me like you're misdiagnosing the problem. The problem isn't too
much hierarchy, it's too little! Your CEO friend needs to grow a pair and
demote his CTO co-founder. Ideally, he would sell his co-founder on the idea
of doing this voluntarily. This will not be an easy discussion.

Titles and hierarchy matter in a startup because someone has to be able to
make decisions in the face of disagreement. Decision making by committee leads
to a lot of really mediocre decisions--like keeping a co-founder as CTO
despite being unqualified for the job!

This decision-by-committee dynamic happened early on in my current startup.
Mostly, the problem was engineers having an equal say in marketing and
financing decisions––a topic they were not focused on or very familiar with,
yet had strong opinions about. This was dumb. It took one of the founders of
Netflix giving me/us a swift kick in the ass to get over it. No longer. We now
divide and conquer. The company is much better for it.

Every company needs a CEO. And if the CEO is not technical, then the company
is eventually going to need a CTO as well. But that's about it in terms of
C-level officers. A small company should not have 4 chiefs. What that really
means is the company has NO chief.

Being a C-level person means being responsible for long term big picture shit
and management and leadership, not just coding. For myself, I am extremely
fortunate to have a visionary co-founder and CTO with real leadership
qualities. He is a partner in the true sense of the word. I expect him to stay
CTO for a long, long time––unless I decide to demote myself and make him the
CEO. (Might happen, who knows?) Regardless, the buck has to stop somewhere.
And that somewhere is the CEO. There can only be one.

~~~
kstenerud
Amen. Every group needs an undisputed leader. Otherwise they flail about and
get very little done. CEO is the default name for that leader in a company,
and using any other name would just lead to confusion when speaking to
investors, press, clients, etc.

A small company (1-10 people) usually doesn't need any other CxO titles
besides CEO.

------
onan_barbarian
This seems superficially attractive, and it's hard to imagine too many people
making a spirited defense of the 'all chiefs, no indians' job title inflation.

But there's a bullshit aspect to it that bothers me - it seems to be ignoring
something basic that's being communicated when people insist on CxO titles.

Specifically, people who insist on CxO titles at some stage in a startup where
it seems a bit pretentious may have a very good reason. What these titles
communicate internally and to the board is something like:

"I am joining this startup and doing a buttload of work under the assumption
that I will be the effective leader (or, CTO = effective technology leader) of
the the company, and if anyone wants to make me step down from this, it will
_actually_ be a demotion and it _will_ be an issue".

This doesn't mean "I will have a tantrum and leave". It means, "don't assume
that you can seamlessly bring in a layer of management above me and this will
fit my expectations".

This position _may_ be a bad idea, I'm not disputing that. However, it may be
what's contingent on someone doing a pile of work for very little money - part
of their vision of the startup might be not suddenly acquiring a layer of
people to report to who have been parachuted in after the hard, nasty work has
been done.

If you want to make it clear that at any moment, the guy who thinks he going
to run the company or the technical aspects of the company can have someone
parachuted in on top of them, then denying them the CxO title is a good way of
communicating that. That's fine, but don't pull this sophomoric shit where you
pretend that people in small companies are insisting on these titles out of
sheer ego alone.

~~~
wlievens
If the main purpose is "reserving" the title for the potential future,
wouldn't some kind of contract be more effective and less pretentious? Just
asking.

~~~
onan_barbarian
What would this contract look like, and say? All up it seems a lot more
complex - and potentially brittle and problematic - than just saying "look, we
have a CEO and CTO now, for what that's worth in a tiny company, deal with
it".

------
jeffreymcmanus
This looks like it's a problem with job titles but it's really a problem with
managing people. The job title is just the symptom.

I have a talk with everyone who works for me in which I say "this is a
startup, job titles are flexible, and everybody (including me) will have to
revisit their role and title frequently. If you're OK with that, then great.
If not, we should talk it through now so everybody's expectations are set."

~~~
joshuamerrill
I absolutely agree with you.

I appreciate the author's advice, though I have a hard time imagining 3 or 4
cofounders doing fundraising when there isn't someone calling him or her self
"CEO."

(I personally take no special pleasure in calling myself CEO. If it confers
more ability to control my destiny, then great; anything beyond that is an ego
game that no startup founder has time to play.)

------
biot
Also if you haven't incorporated yet and you call yourself CEO, what exactly
are you an officer of? A corporation has officers; a domain name and a github
account don't.

------
bradleyland
That's a great litmus test. If you find yourself working with co-founders that
take their Cxx title very seriously, and you have only a couple of employees,
you might have picked the wrong team.

Several of us have Cxx titles at our startup, but we sell in to really large
organizations (sometimes municipal), so having "Chief Customer Happiness
Officer" isn't really an option for us. Or at least we don't believe it is. In
the end, it really doesn't matter, because we're all supremely confident and
scared humble at the same time. None of us would hesitate to give up our
titles to someone more qualified should that need or opportunity arrise.

------
Duff
I think it's appropriate to have a title on a business card or whatever that
describes your role in a meaningful way. "Principal", "Founder", etc.

Corporate titles sound silly in small businesses -- I had my driveway sealed
by the "President and CEO" of a driveway sealing business the other day.

People in contact with customers should have flexibility or use multiple
titles. If you're trying to get an audience with a Managing Director or a
Deputy Commissioner in government, shitty titles won't cut it. An "Account
Manager" won't get past a secretary, but "VP of North American Sales" might.
In other contexts, the dramatic title is a liability.

~~~
randomdata
I never understood the point of having a title. I find the government is
especially interested in my title/occupation and I never know what I should be
telling them.

Professionally, I am a farmer, a programmer, a designer, an administrator, and
was even a baker for a short while; though, sadly, I gave it up as it was too
time consuming on top of the rest. Not to mention all of the business stuff
that goes along with doing those jobs, like management, sales, mechanic in the
case of my farm, etc, etc.

Why are people so hung up on them? They are pretty meaningless.

~~~
Duff
Government is very hierarchical. Everyone basically makes the same amount of
money, so status is the only differentiation between people.

I worked for a government agency for a long time. At one point of my career,
bigshots at the director level would not acknowledge my presence in a room.
Later, they were my best buddies, because I was high enough on the ladder to
be a minor "player" to potentially influence one of their peers.

~~~
randomdata
I have never actually worked for government directly, but I was referring more
to things like passports, where they are very interested in what I do for a
living.

I don't even know what I do for a living, I just work on what needs to be done
or feels right at any given time. My job is to solve problems and create value
for others, just like everyone else. You can't be more specific than that.

------
brlewis
I liked the way FriendFeed handled it:
[http://friendfeed.com/bret/24f5ad01/we-finally-got-job-
title...](http://friendfeed.com/bret/24f5ad01/we-finally-got-job-titles-at-
friendfeed)

~~~
ohashi
Wyoming.

------
prodigal_erik
> And if your early guys ask what they should put on their resume, tell them
> put anything down.

If you are called about a former employee and can't answer the question "what
was their title" with something more concrete than "meh, whatever", you will
sound like a fraudulent reference. You're inadvertently screwing over your
employees if you don't pick something reasonable and stick with it (modulo
actual role changes or promotions due to growth).

~~~
jleader
This is worth considering, but it depends on who's calling, what industry you,
they, and the candidate are in, etc.

If you answer the question "what was their title?" with "they mostly did X and
Y, they were incredible", I doubt that's going to cost them the job (assuming
they'd put something like X and Y on their resume). Or at least, I wouldn't
want to work at any place where the Levenshtein distance between the title on
my resume and the title quoted by my supervisor was a critical part of the
hiring decision.

For example, Yahoo lets technical employees choose their own titles, with a
default of "Technical Yahoo". My ex-coworkers who chose alternative titles
don't seem to have been handicapped in their subsequent careers.

~~~
randallsquared
_I wouldn't want to work at any place where the Levenshtein distance between
the title on my resume and the title quoted by my supervisor was a critical
part of the hiring decision._

Well, "critical" might not apply... maybe it's just an early filter by HR.
This filtering out of people who lie on their resume will have a few false
positives, but even the best filters are going to have a non-negligible false
positive rate -- it's enough that they mostly work, as long as you're swamped
with mediocre and inappropriate applicants.

With thousands of resumes coming in daily for a position (I'm guessing), some
semi-automated winnowing must happen, and any test you devise will have some
potentially awesome candidate crying foul (though such an awesome candidate is
probably not in your pool of applicants today, or tomorrow).

------
powertower
Another three letter word - EGO - combined with delusion will get you all
kinds of fancy titles.

My rule of thumb is that a business of less than 7 people should have 1
"Manager" (not CEO, President, etc), and everyone else should be an employee
(plus additional reasonable titles such as co-founder, etc). As the business
grows and more people are brought onboard you can start handing out titles.

This might not work in every situation, but it's a good starting point.

~~~
MediaSquirrel
In military lingo, it's called Span of Control. 3 reports is the minimum, 5
the ideal, 7 the max.

------
pnathan
I know of a company that has all CEO, CTO, Cxx people, and no actual employees
(they take themselves pretty seriously about this too).

It's really funny.

------
trustfundbaby
Its a foolish dispute ... but the new hire's insistence on the CTO title is a
red flag to me as well.

I'd just create a Vice President of Technology position, and offer it to the
co-founder ... if he doesn't go for it ... offer it to the new hire ... if he
doesn't go for it ... I'd keep looking.

------
davidandgoliath
I don't see any issues with C-level executive titles as long as EGO doesn't
come with it. I'd prefer Chief Nerd Wrangler myself but more often than not
(at least in my case) it would only fair so well when mingling with certain
styles of companies.

To each their own really, it'll operate differently in different contexts. In
the context of the article I would say it would be fair that none of them have
titles to begin with, including the new hire.

Forego them temporarily & operate in a bit more 'round table' style if
feasible. If the titles are a burden and getting in front of the work to be
done, it's not the work that is about to be thrown out the window :)

------
mikeryan
When I launched my (non-startup - services) business I called myself CEO. This
had some nice side effects,for some reason people (reporters, researchers)
would call me for advice. But it seemed lame to call myself the CEO of one-
person company. We are now more then one but I've taken titles off our
business cards, instead just letting our clients know our roles ie "Technical,
Design etc".

While we are still small, less then 10 folks, we're going to keep it that way
since we all wear many different hats at this point. We'll get titles
eventually - but we'll also get more structure as we grow so we'll wait until
we need it.

------
rjd
I'm not sure for all countries but I registered my company recently and the
default title the registering process allocates is "Managing Director". Which
seems exactly the correct term.

I doubt I'd bother changing my title unless I needed to have a division of
responsibility. And for that to occur I would need a number of staff which
would get confused exactly whom they should be talking to.

I think for most companies I have dealt with CEOs start to appear over 20
staff members which may be the level where communication issues start, and
division of responsibility need to be clarified.

I know a few people who use CEO title in companies with 1-3 people, most of
the time its a projection thing, more of a sales tactic than anything. For a
few its an ego thing, but usually they don't last long in community groups as
everyone gets sick listening to narcissistic comments and they isolate
themselves.

------
tatsuke95
Having come from the social gaming industry and attended many a conference,
this is one of my pet peeves. I can't tell you how many two-man operations I
encountered where each person had a CxO title. It is utterly ridiculous.

------
alttag
This is partly the reason I didn't take the CTO title when I joined a startup
years ago. They gave me the flexibility to essentially pick my own title; I
eventually settled on "Director, Software Development".

In addition to avoiding the friction, I had hired (and rejected) several
"CEOs" for entry-level student tech-support jobs several years previous, and
wanted to avoid the presumptions that went along with the title. I was young,
and wanted to be taken seriously when I introduced myself. "CTO" of a company
no one had heard of didn't communicate that.

------
ajaycancherla
Agreed! There is no CTO, no CEO, no nothing until things reach a certain level
of funding and traction. You're just a team trying to build a product that is
useful. And like Eric Ries says, you may miss the target the first time. You
have to rapidly iterate until you hit the mark - then maybe you can give
yourself C-level titles. I personally think they're too snobby though - how
about just 'Partner.'

------
steverb
Heh. I once worked in sales / technical support / geekery for a smallish
computer/networking var. Since I was the only sales person other than the
owner I was given my choice of titles. I chose "Vice President of
Intergalactic Sales and Extra-Terrestrial Support". It barely fit on the
business card.

It did win us some occasional business though.

~~~
matwood
A colleague once had his official title be "Keeper of the Magic." This was in
a fairly large company to.

------
pmdan
This is a symptom of a larger problem at many early-stage startups: that of
merging your personal identity with your purported "company," "board of
directors," etc. rather than running a market experiment as quickly and
efficiently as possible.

------
extofer
I agree having a flat organization over a hierarchy should work better for
start-up. Dropping the C titles is only opening a door for problems between
co-founders and early employees.

------
erichocean
My preference is to use the title "Founder". It explains who you are within
the company, and what kinds of decisions you are able to make.

------
doki_pen
Thanks. I never knew what to tell people when they asked me my title. Now I
can just say early employee.

------
tluyben2
No ego's, company first.

