

Why we're a titleless startup - jolie
http://socialuxe.com/2010/04/why-we-are-a-titleless-startup/

======
aasarava
It's a good article, but there's a flip side to not having titles: You risk
confusing people who don't know much about your company yet.

To put it another way, titles aren't just about establishing a pecking order
-- they are also about helping others identify who in your organization is
responsible for what.

A journalist who wants to talk about your innovative technical solution wants
to talk to the CTO (or VP engineering or whatever.) But if they instead
unknowingly send an email to the person in the CEO role, that message might
sit in the CEO's inbox for a while before getting redirected to the right
person.

Or a legal threat could end up in a junior staff member's inbox, where the
staff member might take the threat less seriously than a CFO would.

And the problem isn't just about where to send emails. What happens when you
grow to a staff of six, three of whom are working on website development? Who
is ultimately responsible for the application? The UI? The servers? Someone
could ask questions and ultimately figure it out -- but it'd be a lot easier
if they could just contact the "sysadmin", the "designer," and the
"developer".

To be fair, the article does mention using "role based" titles when talking to
the media. And I think that the author's real issue is with the "pecking
order" aspect of titles. But forgoing titles altogether isn't the right
solution.

Likewise, choosing something that completely obscures your role, like Mad
Hatter, is like choosing random names for the variables in your code. You
might think it's humorous to have $foo and $bar and $number in your code, but
it doesn't help anyone who has to read your code later.

~~~
alabut
" _You risk confusing people who don't know much about your company yet._ "

Haven't really seen that be a problem at our startup (the same one as the OA).
Whether running a couple of usability tests over skype or meeting people at
the adtech conference yesterday, people seem more interested in what the
company is building than what our particular role is. And if need be, we'll
often describe ourselves in terms they'll understand, like "designer",
"usability test moderator" or whatever the situation warrants.

It's worth pointing out that the blog post title is Why _WE'RE_ A Titleless
Startup. It works in our situation because we have a small team (less than 10)
and it's completely flat - we all report to John, our CEO. It wouldn't work if
there's a strong caste system-style divide between certain groups (like
founders vs employees, or employees vs contractors) or super-specialized prima
donnas unwilling to wear many hats.

------
natrius
Impressive sounding titles are for resumes, not egos. Most people here
recognize the importance of explaining a product in as few words as possible
so the people who want what you're selling stay for more, but for some reason,
the same effect in hiring is overlooked.

If you want future jobs that carry the kind of responsibilities that a VP of
Engineering, for instance, would typically handle, those jobs will be easier
to get if that title's already on your resume. Forcing people to accept the
title of "Irreverence Engineer" is forcing them to leave money on the table,
and it's not a necessary feature of a culture that deemphasizes hierarchy.

~~~
pw0ncakes
Question: at a startup without titles, what do you think of fashioning one's
own, within certain ethical limits?

It's obviously wrong to take the CEO title if you weren't the CEO (he or she
might take it personally) or CFO if your job had nothing to do with finance,
but I think a certain amount of leniency is allowed.

~~~
_delirium
The biggest practical downside I can think of is if in checking references,
your former boss gets called and has a reaction of, "John Doe, Senior Foobar?
I don't think we even _had_ a Foobar". So might be worth running it by whoever
it is from the company you'd be likely to put down as a reference. I've met
founders who are perfectly fine vouching for any reasonable title the employee
wants to pick, though.

------
mkramlich
The OA article comes off a bit like a bunch of teenagers complaining how their
parents generation are a bunch of conformists so they're going to rebel by all
doing their hair different. And then the teenagers all do their hair in
exactly the same "different" way.

Then they get older, and realize, hey, most people's hair is like that because
as you get older, most people don't care that much, so a sort of "style
freeze" happens. Then, luckily, these people give birth to their own set of
teenagers, and the cycle repeats.

If he doesn't understand the value of a job title, even in a small company, he
just hasn't been in business long enough. Eventually he'll learn, "Oh yeah,
those things really do have a purpose!". They help settle who has final say on
decisions within a particular area. They help route questions to the right
folks who can answer them or get them answered. It also puts an outside-facing
name next to a certain slice of the business: forcing a person to "own" an
area because if, say, an outside observer thinks that some company's marketing
is done badly, it will reflect badly on the VP of Marketting, etc. Sure,
inside the company, in the dark, when nobody else is around, you can have
whatever silly titles you want, or even no titles at all. But if you really
think titles are meaningless, you should take it to it's logical conclusion:
renounce all use of personal names, location names, etc. Afterall, they are
just titles, they don't mean anything. Oh yeah, that's right: they _are_
useful. That's why they exist!

------
astrec
Until you reach a certain scale titles are for the benefit of external
parties. How much this matters depends on industry.

I can remember people handing me cards with titles of "Tech Dude" and "Web
Boy" during the dotcom boom (although I'm yet to notch up a "Mad Hatter").
Wiser to eschew titles entirely.

------
mixmax
Two friends of mine did a startups some years ago. One technical guy and one
business guy. The tech guys title was simply "technology" and the business
guys title was "everything else".

It worked - everybody understood it immediately and it brought a smile to
peoples face.

~~~
retube
Definitely a refreshing change from grandiose titles like CEO in a 3 person
company!

------
faramarz
Read the book _The Leader who Had no title_ by Robin Sharma. He philosophizes
this concept and applies it to life in general. You don't need a title. If you
do, you're not busy working enough.

My business card simply reads _Without title_ under my name.

Think of it this way. When does another person come across your card? When you
hand it to them.

If you are serious about building meaningful relationships with
clients/vendors/strangers, a title on a business card should not define your
role. _You_ should.

------
alexro
Isn't it better to _optimize_ the titles, not just abandon them completely?
One way would be having dynamic titles based on what you do: _user identity
coordinator_ , _analytics specialist_ and keep it flat? Titles change when
your _actual_ role changes and if you leave the company it will be (even more)
possible to meaningfully describe yourself in the CV.

------
paulsingh
Without titles, how do you ensure that you got a fair deal when you sign up?

(Assumption: If you end up with a "Director of Engineering" title, you can
easily ask your peers, startup blogs, salary.com to determine the right mix of
cash/equity.)

~~~
count
If you feel like you're being paid too little, you didn't get a fair deal. If
you feel like you're overpaid, what a horrible problem to have.

------
fleitz
Colin Powell very much eschews the command and control structure in his advice
for leadership.

"Organizational Charts and fancy titles count for next to nothing"

<http://www.blaisdell.com/powell/>

Also, the modern business suit is heavily inspired by military command dress.

~~~
gxs
That link deserved its own submission. Thanks and upvoted.

~~~
fleitz
Thanks, his advice was very surprising to me as well coming from the upper
echelons of the US military machinery.

I've posted it to the front page to see if others are interested as well.

------
arihant
'No title' is a title itself. Worth thinking about.

