4 ms·

While I understand the sentiment, the reality is your company will deal with outside decision makers whether it is venture capital, vendors, or business partner

by kls 15y ago

While I understand the sentiment, the reality is your company will deal with outside decision makers whether it is venture capital, vendors, or business partners, adoption a non-executive title when you are indeed the executive will set you at a distinct disadvantage when you enter a room of executives. Like it or not, many of these people are highly competitive and judgmental, they will form an immediate impression based on the fact that you are not a "C" and dismiss you. Others will follow suit, management is full of the incompetent and therefore pack mentality is rampant, any variation from the norm will give them justification to rank you in a submissive position under them. You then have to deal with all kinds of issues like external influences trying to undermine your decision making authority with your business partners. We all like to consider ourselves different and trend setters but make sure you are prepared to fight the battles for doing so. If you are not, then don't worry about the title, use it, move on and keep on doing what a start-up CTO does and that is design and build the technical products of the company.

tptacek 15y ago
Do you have anecdotes to back up the idea that a CTO title is helpful in VC pitches? I've done a lot of those, and (with a team, of which I was the least important but most technical) gotten an A round. I don't think you're right. The "C" is a liability, not an asset.
- kls 15y ago
  Sure I have plenty of them but more than my own stories and observations is that their is plenty of empirical evidence that supports the premise based on basic human nature. One only needs to look at every form of government, The Cast system in India, the Feudal system in Japan and Europe and Slavery to quickly identify that people view themselves as of a cast, whether we like it or not we do, you do, I do. VC's are no different and in some ways the worst offenders they most assuredly see themselves as VC's a distinct class. Now granted it is a generalization and not everyone fits the mold but measured as a whole people associate themselves with their cast in whatever social structure they interact in. Go to an large company and see who the Executives dine with, see who the technical people interact with it will most assuredly be, measured as a whole, birds of a feather. The evidence is in every social structure we participate in. As for pitching VC's, contrary to being helpful it is not hurtful and that was my point, there are very few people that are going to go oh he calls himself the CTO, what an idiot. Sure they are not going to be impressed by the title either so you have a net of 0 there, but the demographic of idiot executives that will dismiss you out of hand for not being an executive is much higher. It's not a matter of helping it's a matter of hurting.
bps4484 15y ago
I completely agree, except in the case of VCs. When you're dealing with partners or customers, "bringing the CTO" in to a conversation sends a message to them that you are serious about the partnership. You may be the only person on the tech team, or maybe one of 2 or 3, but it doesn't matter, because the partner or customer may not know that. In the case of VCs, however, one of their first questions will be "who is your team?". This means that even if you name yourself "CTO, Research Architect, and Head of Product" they'll see you as "member of the technical team".
- kls 15y ago
  I have dealt with a lot of VC's and my point was that the title CTO does not help you, but the lack of it can hurt you with certain people, even VC's. There are very few people that are going to go oh he's a CTO, let me listen up. But there are a lot of people that will go, he is not an executive let me take a nap until the executives start talking again. Even VC's are not immune to this, there are a lot of people that for whatever reason dismiss people that they view as a lower cast. If anyone is set up to look at people as a lower cast it is VC's. I know there is a lot of VC bias on this site, but believe me there are just as many idiot VC's by percentage as their are middle managers.

by kls 15y ago

tptacek 15y ago

Do you have anecdotes to back up the idea that a CTO title is helpful in VC pitches? I've done a lot of those, and (with a team, of which I was the least important but most technical) gotten an A round. I don't think you're right. The "C" is a liability, not an asset.

kls 15y ago
Sure I have plenty of them but more than my own stories and observations is that their is plenty of empirical evidence that supports the premise based on basic human nature. One only needs to look at every form of government, The Cast system in India, the Feudal system in Japan and Europe and Slavery to quickly identify that people view themselves as of a cast, whether we like it or not we do, you do, I do. VC's are no different and in some ways the worst offenders they most assuredly see themselves as VC's a distinct class. Now granted it is a generalization and not everyone fits the mold but measured as a whole people associate themselves with their cast in whatever social structure they interact in. Go to an large company and see who the Executives dine with, see who the technical people interact with it will most assuredly be, measured as a whole, birds of a feather. The evidence is in every social structure we participate in. As for pitching VC's, contrary to being helpful it is not hurtful and that was my point, there are very few people that are going to go oh he calls himself the CTO, what an idiot. Sure they are not going to be impressed by the title either so you have a net of 0 there, but the demographic of idiot executives that will dismiss you out of hand for not being an executive is much higher. It's not a matter of helping it's a matter of hurting.

bps4484 15y ago

I completely agree, except in the case of VCs. When you're dealing with partners or customers, "bringing the CTO" in to a conversation sends a message to them that you are serious about the partnership. You may be the only person on the tech team, or maybe one of 2 or 3, but it doesn't matter, because the partner or customer may not know that. In the case of VCs, however, one of their first questions will be "who is your team?". This means that even if you name yourself "CTO, Research Architect, and Head of Product" they'll see you as "member of the technical team".

kls 15y ago
I have dealt with a lot of VC's and my point was that the title CTO does not help you, but the lack of it can hurt you with certain people, even VC's. There are very few people that are going to go oh he's a CTO, let me listen up. But there are a lot of people that will go, he is not an executive let me take a nap until the executives start talking again. Even VC's are not immune to this, there are a lot of people that for whatever reason dismiss people that they view as a lower cast. If anyone is set up to look at people as a lower cast it is VC's. I know there is a lot of VC bias on this site, but believe me there are just as many idiot VC's by percentage as their are middle managers.