Functions over Titles
I’m sure this post has been written by someone before, but here goes.
A few weeks back we had an intense speed-dating week at the fund interviewing the finalist candidates for the next Founderfuel cohort. We met some great people and out of all those interviews selected a group of amazing teams that begin their Founderfuel journey at the end of this month.
Like most seed investors, we focus a lot on the people. We want to know who’s on the team, what they have done before and why they are the perfect people to go after the opportunity they are presenting to us. So, often our interviews begin with just that: tell us about the team.
More often than not, the responses would start with something like: “Well, I am the CEO, he’s the CTO and he’s the CMO…”.
Ummm.. #lame
Isn’t it a bit crazy to be running around touting these fancy C level titles when you have a 3 or 5 person company?
I often tell the teams that we back that we don’t even have a company yet. It’s a project that becomes a product as we get validation and achieve product/ market fit. It only becomes a company as we begin to commercialize and grow the team and know that we have built something that an identifiable market wants.
The thing with these fancy titles is they can be damaging. First, they lead to title inflation internally. Maybe your 1st few hires want to be VPs or Directors. Maybe you accidentally end up with these different levels in your org chart, when you really want to be as flat as possible.
Also, as that “CEO”, you leave yourself one place to move in the org chart: down. It’s a cold, hard fact that a large number of founding CEOs don’t remain CEOs as their companies grow. Also, it is very unlikely that the CMO you have on day 1 has “been there, done it, got the t-shirt” like the CMO you could get after raising a big fat series A round.
So, please kill the fancy titles. And when an investor asks about the team, tell her what people actually do and are responsible for. Not what their titles are.
Function over title – every time!
I think there has to be some context applied. Many startups assign titles like that to create team unity and a bond.
"You're going to hand them a business card saying, 'I'm CEO, bitch'" I think sums up the sentiment of how seriously titles are taken at a founding stage. Most founders and inventors of projects are people who have left the fold of the rigid corporate ladder, because they find that environment restrictive for innovation. Adopting titles is out of a "the internet is serious business" mentality, and it allows advantages to outside discussion, IE entering conversations with companies that do have a corporate structure, so the party at hand knows generally what decision making power the person has, and what their insight and expertise is within the company. Having, I m the guy who codes ruby, he does the business plan and accounting, and he does the backend server stuff…. isn't really a professional way to present your company, unless i'm disconnected completely from the current best business practices.
I do understand I think what is meant by the post though, in that a lot of startups will try to increase self importance by assigning titles to inflate ego's and with you I agree, that only hinders the company/projects advancement.
LOL! So true Mark. I often tell people (specially "title lovers") : "I'm the President, CEO, Cook, Janitor, Driver, Plumber, Designer, Zoo keeper and anything else I need to be to get the job done! And so should you!"
Agreed. Entrepreneurs should just stick to titles like founder, (lead) developer, sales rep, etc.
Your title should reflect and describe your current job and responsibilities, not inflate them.
Curious: at what point, in your opinion, does it make sense to shift from function to title?
Your example case references the earliest of stages, so it definitely makes sense only to speak in terms of function. For the first 18 months of my startup, the 3 cofounders self-identified only by function (with the caveat that 1 was also designated leader, because *every* team needs one of those).
But after we launched our MVP, we started talking to prospective customers, investors, and employees — all of whom wanted to know that there's some sense of structure. At this stage, at least in our case, it made sense to apply some titles.
The one thing we did – and have continued to do – is avoid calling anyone the CEO. We have a president (moi), but don't want to bestow that title upon anyone prematurely for the very reason you state above. It gives us the latitude to bring one in if/when necessary, or else naturally grow into that role when it makes sense.
Anyway, definitely agree with you that the "forming" stage is completely pointless being anybody other than a (co)founder! Cheers.
Sounds like you have approached things well. There is a place for titles. My point is that place does not include pitching seed VCs and also really should not apply to anything during that seed stage. When you truly become a company and the team is growing some structure is useful.
Honestly I am not sure it means much to people outside of the startup circle. I've try co-founder a few times with students or corporate people and they wait and then ask: "But what do you do?"
I agree for a discussion with VCs. They don't care. But how should I pitch my role in my email signature or when someone ask. Simply co-founder?
You guys are missing the point. Most all entrpreneurs think titles are a joke but enticing new hires by giving them a title they wouldn't normally deserve in a true corporate setting is one of the easiest tricks in the bag for getting crazy-good talent to work twice as hard yet take less money. Most founders IMHO could care less what their title ends up as long as their idea is seen through and hopefully hugely successful. Plus there are more VCs out there who would look at your answer of "we don't have titles b/c we are a project" as lack of leadership, lack of confidence and just plain disorganization. It's a no win.
You raise some great points but I'd say that people who join because of title might not be the best long term cultural fit. And as for VC interactions you need to remember that VCs need to make snap judgments on th spot. We need to know you are focused on what matters. Bandying abut lofty titles does not help
Very true. My personal favourite was a "company" that approached me for an Angel round with an Exec Chairman (the professor), a technical CEO, a CTO, a Chief Scientist and a VP Engineering (collectively the students). Big warning sign.
My post on exactly this topic is the second all-time favourite on my blog so this is definitely a common issue: http://techentrepreneurship.com/2011/02/07/start-...
An exec chairman? Wow, that is rich…
Good points Gary. There are situations and times where titles are needed