I think the issue about all of this going unspoken is the real problem, especially with first-time founders. As with any performance issue, none of this should

I think the issue about all of this going unspoken is the real problem, especially with first-time founders. As with any performance issue, none of this should come suddenly and unexpectedly. The CEO should be setting expectations around what kind of growth you need to be creating within the company, and if you're not then it'll be more understandable that you may be replaced or demoted. That said, I really think that early on, it's much better to give execs the title of "Head of X" rather than director or VP. It indicates that you're in charge, which is the important thing, but it can prevent the need for demotion later. If you just call everyone a VP even though you're a 20 person company and most VPs have 1-2 reports, it can become a problem when you need to hire someone over one of them. If they're just the head of X, then you can either explain that they've been performing at the director level, so now you're going to calibrate their title to that and hire a VP to help mentor them, etc., or you can just make the "Head of X" titles more specific. For example, if you have someone who was Head of Marketing early on, you can tell them that they've been doing a great job as a generalist marketer but now you need them to focus on a particular area (e.g. you're now "Head of Content Marketing"), and you're going to hire a manager to oversee the department.