33 ms·
Ask HN: Should we be Co-Founders? or CEO and CTO?
We graduate in May. He is a badass coder. I've done sales, design, growth hacking and everything uncoded.
Seems silly to take a title like "CEO" or "CTO" when there is nothing but an idea. Seems equally silly to avoid a critical conversation and leave roles ambiguous.
I understand that titles are somewhat arbitrary and meaningless. But I also understand that they serve some purpose.
EDIT: We have several ideas we are vetting. We are at different stages with different ideas. Some have prototypes. Some are just ideas.
- kayhi 13y agoDon't worry about titles at the idea stage.
- lbr 13y agoThanks for the comment. To clarify: We have several ideas we are vetting. We are at different stages with different ideas. Some have prototypes. Some are just ideas.
- kiriappeee 13y agoAt this point it really doesn't matter what title is given to who. What is important is that both of you try to understand if you can actually work together without having conflicting values. What's the first conversation you need to have? Think about the idea by yourself for some time. Ask him to do the same. Time should be a week. You should be thinking of the future, the values of the company (this is super important), what are the unbreakable laws, along what vision (the one liner vision) does the company guide itself. Both of you should be willing to think about this. If either you or your buddy are not, then I can tell you now it won't work out. Not as founders. Assume you get past the thinking stage. Put your ideas on the table. My general gut feel rule here is that both of you should be able to agree on each of the points. However, if there's a tinge of saying yes for the sake of it, then it isn't going to work out either. Confounding is marriage and the best of marriages will always have arguments in it because that's what truly helps the relationship grow. But the arguments also end in a common agreement with lessons learnt. In a cofounder relationship, agreeing to disagree will simply compound problems that will one day kill the entire thing. The second part of the discussion should be that in the future you'd like to be CEO and if starting on the idea, you want to have it signed. This will test both of you. Especially you in your ability to carry out a strong decision while negotiating. If you can't do it, you are either not cut out for being CEO or your cofounder relationship was just never meant to be. Hope that helped. If you want to get in touch, even if it's for idea validation, feel free to do so PS - apologies for grammar errors and typos. Typed on mobile.
- kitcar 13y agoPersonally, I prefer when people just say they are co-founders when there are no employees at the company. Kind of pretentious to introduce yourself as the Chief Executive Officer of no one.
- burnmeout 13y agoCo-Founders. In my opinion, the titles CEO and CTO are only important in the context of large companies where you need to designate separate sectors and have a figurehead for each of those. At this stage, you're both going to be working so closely together that making such a rigid distinction is kind of pointless.
- 27182818284 13y agoCEO will hold more power than CTO. It just does, no matter how informal it is at that stage. It is the traditional leader's name. If that person makes it a routine of calling him/herself CEO, they will appear more powerful than you, even if you have equal equity and you write "CTO" on all of your stuff and in every conversation.
- softwareman 13y agoI think any conflict later on will be disastrous. So why not decide beforehand. Decision can be altered but atleast there will not be any confusion for the initial period.
- davidcoronado 13y agoThe most important thing you can do now is establish clear roles if you have identified your solution to the problem you guys are tackling. For example you both may code but one of you can take on the Role of Execution, meaning you will be in charge of executing any ideas the two of you come up with. And your other Co-Founder can take on the role of Strategy or Technical, meaning although he might not be the best at executing the idea or sales he can definitely understand how to get there. It really depends on your relationship and both of ya'll strengths and weakness. Anyhow I would suggest taking on these specific roles for now until you can validate the solution you are creating and gain some traction.
- baruch 13y agoIt seems you are conflating two different topics here, one of splitting future titles and working order and the other of presenting things externally. Figure out now how you intend to split the roles between you and how you intend to work together. The CEO will be in charge of the CTO. After you figure that out figure out how you are going to present things externally and on business cards. For a two person company co-founders seems better but it really depends on you two and your views.
- phantom_oracle 13y agoAs the other guys have mentioned, titles mean nothing. Equity and the controlling stake mean everything. The guy with 51% (or maybe 50.1% or maybe the adequate amount in your jurisdiction) has majority voting rights and he is the one who calls the shots. According to what you have said, you guys are already at different stages with different ideas, which means you're in quite deep without any formal equity structure. This will always hurt you later on, even if the co-founder is your own sibling! Get the equity right and then just be co-founders.
- bitonomics 13y agoSimilar to other replies the most important thing is the definition of roles. As a tangible example, our startup (team of 7) we actually use both within our title. Co-Founder and CEO. Externally this is good, because it provides initial guidance for others who are getting to know the company and aide them in making some initial judgements. For example the CEO is going to be the one responsible for raising money, acquiring customers, recruiting, etc. So if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, no reason to wait to call it a duck.