4 ms·

Slighty off topic, but how do these companies chose their upper level titles ? Thought the article there’s mention of chiefs, coaches, managers, and I kinda wo

by hrktb 6y ago

Slighty off topic, but how do these companies chose their upper level titles ? Thought the article there’s mention of chiefs, coaches, managers, and I kinda wonder why for marketing it comes out to be a “head”. Naively it feels like a head -> body image with a strong top down connotation, people below that role becoming string puppets to the “brain”.

gk1 6y ago
"Head" is often used for the first hire, or the most senior of a small group.
marcinzm 6y ago
I've seen Head of X across the board in startups and not just in marketing. Head of X is a role description that does not tie to a traditional corporate hierarchy level (CXO, Director, VP, etc.). It conveys that they are in charge of X which is important for external parties to understand when communicating with them. They may be a Director but still Head of X. But if you see Director of X you assume there's a VP of X who is really in charge but in a startup that may not be the case. Head of X is also flexible enough that if you hire someone over them one day it doesn't feel like a demotion or require contortions with titles (SVP, etc.).
- hrktb 6y ago
  Thanks. If I understand correctly, it’s a position roughly equivalent to “Lead” but without assumption that there is a team behind nor of any official hierarchical position. Still feels weird if you have both a COO and a “Head of operations”, but I guess that’s a complex situation to start with.
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    Usually Head of X translates into a manager position although they may have no team. So it's like the manager version of a lead. >Still feels weird if you have both a COO and a “Head of operations”, but I guess that’s a complex situation to start with. It's fairly common to have a CTO and a Head of Engineering but I'm not sure if there's that sort of responsibility split on operations as well. In the eng case, the HoE generally focuses on team management while the CTO focuses on strategy/architecture/whatever. Often the case when the CTO is a founder and no one wants to remove their title but they're not scaling as a manager.
lmeyerov 6y ago
Some aspects: - Stretch candidate: A great hire for most seed/A startups is someone who is a great Director at a slightly later-stage co and wants to move to VP or C (marketing, product, whatever). They still know how to actually work, have ownership + management experience, are hungry, and want that next title. So Director -> "VP of X" is a good leap for them. Likewise, a regular leader or area leader ("Director of Content Marketing") -> Director. - Room: At the same time, it's useful to keep 1-2 slots above any role. As things progress, you may want to grow the team. You can give the current person a promotion if they're rocking it and looks like they can keep growing with the company. Conversely, if they're good but too risky for them to own that next 10X of growth, this gives you a chance to hire above them without firing them. (Chance they'll still leave / be replaced, but at least this way everyone walks away a winner without 1-2q of business disruption.) - Authority: Title do communicate internally + externally who owns X, which simplifies collaboration & decision making. Hierarchy of titles and how they cover ownership areas matters here, vs. what they precisely are. And yeah, "Head of X" is a good placeholder until a clearer structure makes sense. Ex: senior engineer, and unclear if they'll focus more on VP Eng, Architect, Tech Lead, etc. as team grows. Individuals may prefer this for themselves b/c they may not know themselves what they want to do next in general. Conversely, doing this badly means: Someone may reject the job, drama / quitting right when you're growing, trickier compensation, ... .

by hrktb 6y ago

gk1 6y ago

"Head" is often used for the first hire, or the most senior of a small group.

marcinzm 6y ago

I've seen Head of X across the board in startups and not just in marketing. Head of X is a role description that does not tie to a traditional corporate hierarchy level (CXO, Director, VP, etc.). It conveys that they are in charge of X which is important for external parties to understand when communicating with them. They may be a Director but still Head of X. But if you see Director of X you assume there's a VP of X who is really in charge but in a startup that may not be the case. Head of X is also flexible enough that if you hire someone over them one day it doesn't feel like a demotion or require contortions with titles (SVP, etc.).

hrktb 6y ago
Thanks. If I understand correctly, it’s a position roughly equivalent to “Lead” but without assumption that there is a team behind nor of any official hierarchical position. Still feels weird if you have both a COO and a “Head of operations”, but I guess that’s a complex situation to start with.
- marcinzm 6y ago
  Usually Head of X translates into a manager position although they may have no team. So it's like the manager version of a lead. >Still feels weird if you have both a COO and a “Head of operations”, but I guess that’s a complex situation to start with. It's fairly common to have a CTO and a Head of Engineering but I'm not sure if there's that sort of responsibility split on operations as well. In the eng case, the HoE generally focuses on team management while the CTO focuses on strategy/architecture/whatever. Often the case when the CTO is a founder and no one wants to remove their title but they're not scaling as a manager.

lmeyerov 6y ago

Some aspects: - Stretch candidate: A great hire for most seed/A startups is someone who is a great Director at a slightly later-stage co and wants to move to VP or C (marketing, product, whatever). They still know how to actually work, have ownership + management experience, are hungry, and want that next title. So Director -> "VP of X" is a good leap for them. Likewise, a regular leader or area leader ("Director of Content Marketing") -> Director. - Room: At the same time, it's useful to keep 1-2 slots above any role. As things progress, you may want to grow the team. You can give the current person a promotion if they're rocking it and looks like they can keep growing with the company. Conversely, if they're good but too risky for them to own that next 10X of growth, this gives you a chance to hire above them without firing them. (Chance they'll still leave / be replaced, but at least this way everyone walks away a winner without 1-2q of business disruption.) - Authority: Title do communicate internally + externally who owns X, which simplifies collaboration & decision making. Hierarchy of titles and how they cover ownership areas matters here, vs. what they precisely are. And yeah, "Head of X" is a good placeholder until a clearer structure makes sense. Ex: senior engineer, and unclear if they'll focus more on VP Eng, Architect, Tech Lead, etc. as team grows. Individuals may prefer this for themselves b/c they may not know themselves what they want to do next in general. Conversely, doing this badly means: Someone may reject the job, drama / quitting right when you're growing, trickier compensation, ... .