5 ms·

Minimize use of CxO titles at early company stages

44 points by venturefizz 13y ago

grosbisou 13y ago
I agree with most of this post but I think more often than not founders do not care about CxO titles. They just want to get shit done. On the contrary people outside the company (investors, press, everybody) needs/wants to know which position you and your cofounders fulfill when you meet them.
OldSchool 13y ago
Yes, yes, and yes. Owner, Founder, maybe President, but CxO just looks ridiculous. Way too many one-person company CEOs out there. I believe this title grab began when CEOs started getting skewered in the media for being overpaid. End result, lots of free titles self-dubbed. I suppose that had the positive effect of lowering -average- CEO pay everywhere :)
- mhurron 13y ago
  CXO titles in any small business look ridiculous. I worked at a small company where the 'IT Manager' over 3 people (developer, junior developer, system administrator) called himself the CIO. Why? So he could demand a salary that (along with the owner/CEO, the accountant/CFO and floor manager/COO) crippled the company and so it would look better when he moved on. Of course, now that he was a CXO level, he just sat on his ass, drank coffee and made promises to the company owner that everyone else had to make happen, so he looked good. CXO positions being grabbed at small companies is a sign of a group of dysfunctional, self-congratulating morons looking to ride this to other places willing to pay them even more to be called CXO.
  - nasalgoat 13y ago
    One reason for grabing a C-level title early on is to avoid someone else getting it later as the business grows. Often, if there's no CTO for example, they might be tempted to hire a more senior person in that role. But if it's taken, well...
    - mhurron 13y ago
      And when the person who was there to grab it isn't qualified for the position? Just because you were there early doesn't mean you're the best person for the job. CXO titles at small companies are a sign of bad things.
kyllo 13y ago
If they're not a rockstar, I'd make the case that they're your "development head / lead". How do you even know if your lead developer is a "rockstar" or not--especially if you're the non-technical co-founder? Are you supposed to give him/her coding tests? The term "rockstar" needs to die, now. It's a meaningless mumbo-jumbo term invented by someone who didn't understand what developers do.
- rfnslyr 13y ago
  I absolutely hate these meaningless titles. I just started work in the corporate world. After a month I literally want to kill myself. We use the following terms: To do items -> ACTION TASKS! Manager -> Champion.... groan Meetings -> "Social". As in, "in ten minutes, we're having a social in room 10D. Cooworker -> Friend. We have to use these terms, there are so many more, that combined with the fake forced "i love to work here" attitude day in day out is absolutely crushing me.
  - gvb 13y ago
    Don't forget Leaders! In Manager -> Leader in the HR context and then the Leader -> Champion in the project management context.
    - rfnslyr 13y ago
      I have 3 months left at this internship at which point I'm going to hermit and develop my own shit for the next year. I just need to stick this out since it pays a fat paycheck, funding my food and rent.
  - gohrt 13y ago
    Let's not foget this gem: Figuratively -> Literally Do people in your company use "Social" to mean a conversation about business topics? A "social" is people eating/drinking and chatting informally to get to know each other. "Champion" is not a "manager". A champion is someone who cares about a project and fights for it. Someone assigned to maange a project might not be a champion -> will neglect it and let it die.
OldSchool 13y ago
I've always believed that from a risk/reward, legal liability standpoint, being $NOBODY making $ GAZILLIONS was the ideal state. This trend is diametrically opposed to that approach.
tymathews 13y ago
Isn't founder/co-founder a good enough indication that you do everything? and if its not implicit enough maybe I can just make my title CXO to get the point across :)
Hovertruck 13y ago
"Minimize use of titles at early company stages" would simplify this a bit.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  Right, with regard to use. Early on, titles mean nothing operationally. However, they're armor against people being hired above someone. Frankly, although I can't officially prevent it (unless a majority-shareholding CEO) if someone's going to be hired above me, I fucking want it to be a company-wide earthquake if it happens, in order to discourage the phenomenon where high-level positions are handed out as political tokens. It goddamn better be painful and dramatic for the company if some outsider is hired above me, to take advantage of my fucking hard work. The reason VCs don't like to see CxOs already in place is because it makes it harder for them to use the company to hand out jobs to their underachieving middle-aged friends looking for executive sinecures.
michaelochurch 13y ago
Warning: Limit Break ahead. (Yeah, you thought I was always Limit Breaking. No, this is a real one.) This is complete and utter douchebaggery and your IQ will drop 5 points if you read it to completion. I'm sorry, but if I'm going to go anywhere near a pre-funding startup, I better fucking have some domain X over which no one will ever fucking be hired above me. Sorry, but if I wanted to work at a company where people could be hired above me without me having a say in it, I'd take the $200k+ hedge fund job and wouldn't touch your startup with my worst enemy's dick. This is how talent sees it. Accept it or fail at your own peril. Job titles don't matter for fuck-all early on, but companies tend to have a weird dynamic. For a long time, titles don't matter and they're so inconsequential that they're never used (business cards are blank on the title line). Sure, someone might be "Chief Revenue Officer" but the only people who even know he has that title are the CEO and Board. When titles are inconsequential, you hurt yourself by bringing them up. So don't. The title is something you have, for later on when you need it, but not something you use-- at all. It just sits there for later purposes. So, in the early stages, while it's important to have titles, I will agree that you shouldn't explicitly "use" them much. For a 10-person startup, they don't mean anything, operationally, except for where a person will be when they start to mean something. Through this, they motivate talented people to stick with the company even when things get painful. And then... the company gets to a point where titles do matter and, by that time, I better fucking have one. Unless you can convince me that your company will never have job titles, in which case I don't want to be "that guy" who brings them into existence. OP seems to support the idea of an early employee taking a pre-emptive hit ("Engineering Director" instead of "VP/Engineering" or "CTO") so other people can be plugged above him, often without his consent. This is because the real perk of being a VC is being able to hand out executive positions in other peoples' companies to your underachieving friends. Fuck that. That's bullshit. You'll never get talent if you take this guy's advice.
- patrickmay 13y ago
  Most successful VCs are not so willing to risk their investment by putting incompetent people into executive positions. The fact is that often the lead developer who builds the first version of a product does not have the skills and experience to be the CTO as the company grows. The first salesperson may well not be ready to build a sales team. The accountant might not have the breadth to be a CFO. In addition to money, good VCs bring in experience that can dramatically increase the chance of success. They need some flexibility in the organization to be able to do so. That being said, your comment is an excellent warning to people joining an early stage startup. Know what you want your role to be if and when the company is successful and negotiate appropriately.
tbrownaw 13y ago
I would think that being a "Chief $FOO Officer" would require that there be other $FOO Officers in the company, who all report (maybe indirectly) to you. If your company isn't big enough to have middle management, it's not big enough to have Chief Anything Officers. It's completely nonsensical.
CptCodeMonkey 13y ago
Funny memory, at a startup weekend in a team as the only technical resource. Had my headset on but wasn't listening to music... was somewhat amusing as everyone passed out C letter titles for an idea that wasn't even implemented. Took my headset off when someone claimed CTO "CTO huh? What am I doing right now?... Oh you don't actually know? You want to be the CTO but you don't know what your only engineer is doing?" Walked off after that.
- infinitone 13y ago
  Startup weekend is probably one of the last places on earth to find legit entrepreneurs/founders. I've been to 2 and never will be going again- such a mental drain to accomplish so little.
munro 13y ago
Ha! This is great, it looks as if this article was written for Soylent Corporation. I personally hope their company succeeds, to the point where they're going to have some awkward title changes. :) https://campaign.soylent.me/soylent-free-your-body https://campaign.soylent.me/soylent-free-your-body
- gohrt 13y ago
  Proposed new titles: Founding team: Soylent Red New hires: Soylent Green

44 points by venturefizz 13y ago

I agree with most of this post but I think more often than not founders do not care about CxO titles. They just want to get shit done. On the contrary people outside the company (investors, press, everybody) needs/wants to know which position you and your cofounders fulfill when you meet them.

OldSchool 13y ago

Yes, yes, and yes. Owner, Founder, maybe President, but CxO just looks ridiculous. Way too many one-person company CEOs out there. I believe this title grab began when CEOs started getting skewered in the media for being overpaid. End result, lots of free titles self-dubbed. I suppose that had the positive effect of lowering -average- CEO pay everywhere :)

mhurron 13y ago
CXO titles in any small business look ridiculous. I worked at a small company where the 'IT Manager' over 3 people (developer, junior developer, system administrator) called himself the CIO. Why? So he could demand a salary that (along with the owner/CEO, the accountant/CFO and floor manager/COO) crippled the company and so it would look better when he moved on. Of course, now that he was a CXO level, he just sat on his ass, drank coffee and made promises to the company owner that everyone else had to make happen, so he looked good. CXO positions being grabbed at small companies is a sign of a group of dysfunctional, self-congratulating morons looking to ride this to other places willing to pay them even more to be called CXO.
- nasalgoat 13y ago
  One reason for grabing a C-level title early on is to avoid someone else getting it later as the business grows. Often, if there's no CTO for example, they might be tempted to hire a more senior person in that role. But if it's taken, well...
  - mhurron 13y ago
    And when the person who was there to grab it isn't qualified for the position? Just because you were there early doesn't mean you're the best person for the job. CXO titles at small companies are a sign of bad things.

kyllo 13y ago

If they're not a rockstar, I'd make the case that they're your "development head / lead". How do you even know if your lead developer is a "rockstar" or not--especially if you're the non-technical co-founder? Are you supposed to give him/her coding tests? The term "rockstar" needs to die, now. It's a meaningless mumbo-jumbo term invented by someone who didn't understand what developers do.

rfnslyr 13y ago
I absolutely hate these meaningless titles. I just started work in the corporate world. After a month I literally want to kill myself. We use the following terms: To do items -> ACTION TASKS! Manager -> Champion.... groan Meetings -> "Social". As in, "in ten minutes, we're having a social in room 10D. Cooworker -> Friend. We have to use these terms, there are so many more, that combined with the fake forced "i love to work here" attitude day in day out is absolutely crushing me.
- gvb 13y ago
  Don't forget Leaders! In Manager -> Leader in the HR context and then the Leader -> Champion in the project management context.
  - rfnslyr 13y ago
    I have 3 months left at this internship at which point I'm going to hermit and develop my own shit for the next year. I just need to stick this out since it pays a fat paycheck, funding my food and rent.
- gohrt 13y ago
  Let's not foget this gem: Figuratively -> Literally Do people in your company use "Social" to mean a conversation about business topics? A "social" is people eating/drinking and chatting informally to get to know each other. "Champion" is not a "manager". A champion is someone who cares about a project and fights for it. Someone assigned to maange a project might not be a champion -> will neglect it and let it die.

OldSchool 13y ago

I've always believed that from a risk/reward, legal liability standpoint, being $NOBODY making $ GAZILLIONS was the ideal state. This trend is diametrically opposed to that approach.

tymathews 13y ago

Isn't founder/co-founder a good enough indication that you do everything? and if its not implicit enough maybe I can just make my title CXO to get the point across :)

Hovertruck 13y ago

"Minimize use of titles at early company stages" would simplify this a bit.

michaelochurch 13y ago
Right, with regard to use. Early on, titles mean nothing operationally. However, they're armor against people being hired above someone. Frankly, although I can't officially prevent it (unless a majority-shareholding CEO) if someone's going to be hired above me, I fucking want it to be a company-wide earthquake if it happens, in order to discourage the phenomenon where high-level positions are handed out as political tokens. It goddamn better be painful and dramatic for the company if some outsider is hired above me, to take advantage of my fucking hard work. The reason VCs don't like to see CxOs already in place is because it makes it harder for them to use the company to hand out jobs to their underachieving middle-aged friends looking for executive sinecures.

michaelochurch 13y ago

Warning: Limit Break ahead. (Yeah, you thought I was always Limit Breaking. No, this is a real one.) This is complete and utter douchebaggery and your IQ will drop 5 points if you read it to completion. I'm sorry, but if I'm going to go anywhere near a pre-funding startup, I better fucking have some domain X over which no one will ever fucking be hired above me. Sorry, but if I wanted to work at a company where people could be hired above me without me having a say in it, I'd take the $200k+ hedge fund job and wouldn't touch your startup with my worst enemy's dick. This is how talent sees it. Accept it or fail at your own peril. Job titles don't matter for fuck-all early on, but companies tend to have a weird dynamic. For a long time, titles don't matter and they're so inconsequential that they're never used (business cards are blank on the title line). Sure, someone might be "Chief Revenue Officer" but the only people who even know he has that title are the CEO and Board. When titles are inconsequential, you hurt yourself by bringing them up. So don't. The title is something you have, for later on when you need it, but not something you use-- at all. It just sits there for later purposes. So, in the early stages, while it's important to have titles, I will agree that you shouldn't explicitly "use" them much. For a 10-person startup, they don't mean anything, operationally, except for where a person will be when they start to mean something. Through this, they motivate talented people to stick with the company even when things get painful. And then... the company gets to a point where titles do matter and, by that time, I better fucking have one. Unless you can convince me that your company will never have job titles, in which case I don't want to be "that guy" who brings them into existence. OP seems to support the idea of an early employee taking a pre-emptive hit ("Engineering Director" instead of "VP/Engineering" or "CTO") so other people can be plugged above him, often without his consent. This is because the real perk of being a VC is being able to hand out executive positions in other peoples' companies to your underachieving friends. Fuck that. That's bullshit. You'll never get talent if you take this guy's advice.

patrickmay 13y ago
Most successful VCs are not so willing to risk their investment by putting incompetent people into executive positions. The fact is that often the lead developer who builds the first version of a product does not have the skills and experience to be the CTO as the company grows. The first salesperson may well not be ready to build a sales team. The accountant might not have the breadth to be a CFO. In addition to money, good VCs bring in experience that can dramatically increase the chance of success. They need some flexibility in the organization to be able to do so. That being said, your comment is an excellent warning to people joining an early stage startup. Know what you want your role to be if and when the company is successful and negotiate appropriately.

tbrownaw 13y ago

I would think that being a "Chief $FOO Officer" would require that there be other $FOO Officers in the company, who all report (maybe indirectly) to you. If your company isn't big enough to have middle management, it's not big enough to have Chief Anything Officers. It's completely nonsensical.

CptCodeMonkey 13y ago

Funny memory, at a startup weekend in a team as the only technical resource. Had my headset on but wasn't listening to music... was somewhat amusing as everyone passed out C letter titles for an idea that wasn't even implemented. Took my headset off when someone claimed CTO "CTO huh? What am I doing right now?... Oh you don't actually know? You want to be the CTO but you don't know what your only engineer is doing?" Walked off after that.

infinitone 13y ago
Startup weekend is probably one of the last places on earth to find legit entrepreneurs/founders. I've been to 2 and never will be going again- such a mental drain to accomplish so little.

munro 13y ago

Ha! This is great, it looks as if this article was written for Soylent Corporation. I personally hope their company succeeds, to the point where they're going to have some awkward title changes. :) https://campaign.soylent.me/soylent-free-your-body https://campaign.soylent.me/soylent-free-your-body

gohrt 13y ago
Proposed new titles: Founding team: Soylent Red New hires: Soylent Green