I suppose we can agree to disagree then. Naming a "leader" early on does not mean that leader has to exert any kind of authority early on -- as I think we both

I suppose we can agree to disagree then. Naming a "leader" early on does not mean that leader has to exert any kind of authority early on -- as I think we both agree, decisions should be made by consensus early and often. To say that establishing a basic understanding on who will be taking the leadership roles early is somehow detrimental to the startup? I couldn't disagree more. Most companies I've seen out here (and I've seen quite a few as part of YC) have clearly defined who the "CEO" will be later, and it hasn't hurt them one bit, as long as that person is actual worthy of the position (and doesn't act like an idiot early on). Your example that "Having a 'clearly defined leader' is as good as having a single founder and a bunch of employees" almost proves my point. If your team's motivation relies on them all imagining that they are the "CEO", you're going to have problems down the road. A good founding team should all understand their eventual positions from the get-go, and have no problem with that. I think you're confusing someone being named "CEO" and someone behaving like "the boss". They may sometimes happen together, but I would not say they are correlated.