Loading...
Answers
MenuWhat is a better title for a startup head....Founder or CEO? Are there any pros/cons to certain titles?
This question has no further details.
Answers


The previous answers given here are great, but I've copied a trick from legendary investor Monish Pabrai that I've used in previous startups that seems to work wonders -- especially if your company does direct B2B sales.
Many Founders/ CEOs are hung up on having the Founder/ CEO/ President title. As others have mentioned, those titles have become somewhat devalued in today's world -- especially if you are in a sales meeting with a large organization. Many purchasing agents at large organizations are bombarded by Founders/ CEOs/ Presidents visiting them all day.
This conveys the image that a) your company is relatively small (the CEO of GM never personally sells you a car) and b) you are probably the most knowledgeable person in the organization about your product, but once you land the account the client company will mostly be dealing with newly hired second level staff.
Monish recommends that Founder/ CEOs hand out a business card that has the title "Head of Sales" or "VP of Sales". By working in the Head of Sales role, and by your ability to speak knowledgeably about the product, you will convey the message that a) every person in the organization is very knowledgeable about the ins and outs of the product (even the sales guys) and b) you will personally be available to answer the client's questions over the long run.
I've used this effectively many times myself.
The term "founder" describes your relationship to the history of the business. Page and Brin will always be Google's founders. The term "CEO" is about your position in the current organization's hierarchy. Some founders will be CEOs, at least for a while.
Titles are the easy way for outsiders to understand how to connect with your organization. So if you're the head, just use the title CEO unless you have some strong reason not to. That way people will know to come to you with CEO-ish things. There's no harm in putting "founder" on your business cards as well. E.g., "Founder / CEO" or "CEO & Founder". But things like "CTO & Founder" are also legitimate, so don't go with "Founder" alone, or people will be left wondering which things they should contact you directly about.


I work with many CEOs and C suite executives as well as "startup CEO" I gotta tell you that the CEO term in our world is becoming less impressive and more egotistical. Most founders want that CEO but aren't really worthy of a CEO title. Just because you launch doesn't mean you should lead much less that you are capable of long term thinking.
Consider Steve jobs who went through this and then had to prove himself to be worthy of such role. If you go with a lesser egotistical title, like cofounder & (___) fill in blank with something you are really useful at.. You can come across as more of a team player, focused in your and your company's efforts... Etc.
I own a web design firm, I call myself owner.
I own and run a hosting and technology it company, I call myself cofounder and chief strategist (not CEO)
I co-own a multistate cleaning company and call myself co-founder and lead marketer.
I had other startups and did also call myself a CEO until I knew better. I read a lot on management, I give presentations for successful leading, team evangelism, gaining competitive advantages, host a series of coaching sessions every year, personally helped several now successful individuals in growing their companies. And even though i have an MBA and all this experience I know that if I applied for a CEO job somewhere I probably wouldn't still get that top role. You must earn it. CEOs has huge responsibilities.
Be a leader and know when you are and when you are not a true CEO or manager for that matter.
Read the Harvard MBA oath and read up on Henry Mintzberg on managing.


On top of what was discussed here, the most important message to convey via a practical title is:
a) did you started the company - e.g. Founder, Co-Founder
b) what's your key role (whom you make most of the decisions as) - e.g. CEO, COO, Business Development, Product, Marketing
There will be drawbacks when your audience are not sure what you do by reading your title, e.g. Chief Rainmaker, Chief Problem Solver... <- bad examples


You will always be a Founder or Co-Founder and your title will change. Be sure to be careful however how you dole out the Founder/Co-Founder titles. That should be a lifetime title so be sure it goes to the right people who played a major role in the starting of the company and who will continue to play a role in the years to come. Another option is to give yourself the title President if you have plans to find someone to run your business (say if you are a technical founder)


All the previous answers are good. I'm just adding my 2 cents here, you can write yourself as Founder, CEO and retain both the titles with you.


It depends.
If you are opening a pizza restaurant, then go with Owner.
If you are starting a tech company that you want to grow into the millions in revenue, CEO/ Founder is fine (both).
There are people that think that a "CEO" title for a company with 2 people (for example) is egotistical and looks bad. So, they stick with Founder and other titles early on.
Although well placed (I thought that, too), I don't agree.
When I'm trying to talk to who represents a company (for investment or doing a business deal) I want to know who the CEO is so I can talk to them. I don't want to wade through a bunch of Founder titles, I want to know the designated point person for this business.


FOUNDER!
I mentor at University level for the Entrepreneurship program. I see this all the time!
Chances are as a new business you are "Jack (or Jill) of all trades", and are an expert at whatever your business does, and that is why you started the business.
BUT as a new business, you will NOT be doing the tasks of a "CEO". [Google: CEO job description]
Wait till you've moved to a place where you are just doing CEO work, or leave room for the business to grow and let some other C level experts come in.
NOTE: Read Micheal Gerber's "E Myth Revisited". This is the very best business book for Founders. You'll learn what is really required to intentionally create a business model that you can franchise/ sell/ or walk away from and let operate on it's own.
Founder would be the term if you started the company from the start Apple would have been started by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, Microsoft founded by Bill Gates and Paul Allen,
Walt Disney would have founded his company in his own name
As a start up head the title of Founder can help with you find investors and funding the main drawback is that if you list yourself as a Founder,it will show that you are in the early stages of your business and therefore can be perceived as being a risky or potential high risk prospect
Tim Cook of Apple or Steve Ballmer of Microsoft,Robert Iger and Michael Eisner of Disney are examples of the role of the CEO and they have a much greater responsibility to the whole business operation
You would have to demonstrate that you have the necessary knowledge and experience to be holding the position of a CEO within the company and with all the necessary capability of what that means
Also does your company have a CFO Chief Financial Officer, CMO Chief Marketing Officer and other senior Executive roles that need to be listed as well
There is a large difference in being a Founder and a CEO
and the different responsibilities involved in being a start up and the actual CEO role of dealing with the hands on operation of the company being answerable to financial institutions,regulatory bodies,employees,the wider community and also with the greater social responsibility concerns which comes with the CEO role


Every position or title comes with it is Pros and Cons in a start-up, even CEO or Founder whatever you call it. Let us first look at the CEO’s Pros and Cons:
Pros of being a CEO:
1. Salary: CEO are at the top position in company and thus, earns the highest salary in company. Along with the basic salary, CEOs also earns various other compensation packages in the industry such as bonuses, incentives, and other various pay packages. Also, CEO in companies gets various perks and benefits such as private planes, club memberships, luxury cars, personal travel etc.
2. Freedom: CEO of the company have the freedom to set their own schedules and define the strategies of organization. The CEO of the company holds the ultimate power to take all the important decisions in the company. CEO also holds the ability to delegate the tasks among other managers of company.
3. Reputation: Holding the position of CEO in company provides reputation to the individual in the company as well as society. This provides valuable opportunity to individual to carry out various projects with higher reputation and acceptance from the members of society. Also, CEO in the company holds higher authority than other staff members in organization. CEO knows about the whole operations of company and is also more informed about the market conditions of business environment. Also, CEO holds complete information about the financial and operational position of business which increases the experience of individual.
4. Teamwork: CEO holds large number of people under him and every task is completed in team collaboration which creates higher harmony among the staff members of the company.
Cons of being a CEO:
1. Pressure and criticism: The main limitation of becoming a CEO is higher work pressure and criticism from various lower level staff members. This also results in loneliness being faced by CEO of the company. Lot of work pressure results in higher stress level being faced by CEO. Also, there is no one with whom CEO can discuss the problems in company operations.
2. Lawsuits: CEO may face various lawsuits in case of unethical behaviour taking place in the organization and in the case of manipulation in financial records of the company. Further, there is not always the win situation in the company. customers or ex-employees of the organization may post various negative comments about the working or behaviour of CEO of company.
3. Face of the company: CEO of the company holds reputation due to the name of the company. however, the advantages hold by the CEO in company may turn out to be negative when the company faces financial set back.
4. Lot of paperwork: There is lot of paperwork and hiring and firing duties involved in holding this position in company.
5. Tight and busy schedules: The CEO faces huge problems due to its tight and busy schedules. CEO is responsible for various operations in company which causes huge burden upon the company. Also, CEO must ensure that all operations of the company are completed and managed in the limited time frame.
6. Higher stress: Huge work burden upon the CEO of company results in higher stress and anxiety. Also, lot of work pressures results in various sleepless nights. Work pressure also distracts the CEO from their personal, family, and societal life.
Pros of being a founder:
1. You can move faster: When you can decide without consulting others, you can do it quickly and move on with make that decision a reality.
2. There is less drama: There are countless stories of co-founders butting heads and fighting over all the decisions. Egos can get out of control quickly. Co-founders can disagree strongly on where to take the company long term. Many times, that ends with a less-than-amicable split that puts the company at risk.
3. Clearer direction: When you have only got one person steering the ship, it is clearer where it’s heading and who’s in charge. When a company lacks clear direction, it is much harder for everyone on the team to know what to focus on.
Cons of being a founder:
1. You will get tired of making so many decisions: Decision fatigue is a real thing and when you are the sole person making every single major decision, it is draining. It is easy to make bad decisions because you are only tired of making any decision.
2. Every move comes back to you: There is a lot of weight resting on your shoulders and that can get heavy. Day after day of wondering if you did/did not make the right decision will wear on your psyche.
3. Hard to brainstorm big ideas: When you are thinking big picture, having a couple of other co-founders to hash out an idea or talk through why something may or may not work, is beneficial. You do not have that as a founder. Sure, you can have others on your team to do that with, but it is less effective.
4. Seeing different perspectives is difficult: Most people have an area of expertise or at least a certain area they gravitate towards. For me, I am a product guy. I default to focusing on the product before anything else. On some days, that is great. On others? Not so much. Some problems would be better solved if I were stronger around sales. Other problems would be easier to tackle if I were great on the technical side of things. When you have got co-founders across different areas of expertise, you are able to pull all those perspectives together and have a much more holistic view.
5. It is just lonely: You will spend so much time in your own head, overthinking, overanalysing, and internalizing every little thing, with no great way for getting that out.
6. It is extremely easy to make bad decisions: When you are going at it solo, you can quickly get caught up in a bad idea and just run with it. You don’t have anyone to tell you that it’s a really stupid idea, leaving you vulnerable to getting distracted by things that won’t help your company (or worse, actually hurt it).
Besides if you do have any questions give me a call: https://clarity.fm/joy-brotonath
Related Questions
-
How do I hire a good Copywriter?
Kudos to you for seeing the value in great copy. I love that you mentioned 37signals, which is an organization that's made copywriting part of almost everyone's jobs (or so they've shared on their blog). MailChimp and Zendesk are two others that people often point to re: great copy that builds a brand and differentiates; Groupon is another awesome example of really, really tonal copy that people actually read (which is more than half the battle). MailChimp has in-house copywriters, including Kate Kiefer (https://twitter.com/katekiefer), and so does Groupon. I'm not sure who writes for Dropbox or Zendesk, though searching companies on LinkedIn can often reveal little-known in-house geniuses. The startups you mention have a certain style and tone that I have to say is different from what you'll normally get with a "direct response" copywriter, though by all means check out the link David Berman submitted to you because you never know. I recommend that, to achieve the slightly funky, funny-ish copy you're looking for, you seek out a conversion-focused copywriter with a creative and UX background. You need someone who's totally at ease adopting a new voice / tone and using it appropriately across your site and in your emails; less experienced copywriters might be heavy-handed with the tone, which often gets in the way of the user experience (e.g., button copy that's tonal can lead to confusion). Be careful, of course, not to push your writer to be exceptionally creative -- because a little touch of tone goes a loooong way for busy, scanning eyes. Here are some great freelance copywriters you could consider: http://copyhackers.com/freelance-copywriters-for-hire/ The link to Neville's Kopywriting peeps is also great. Before hiring, ask to see a portfolio or get a) links to websites they've written and b) a zip of emails they've written; if a writer is accepting clients, they'll usually showcase their work on their website. Check out their blog and tweets to see if their voice comes through in their own writing. Don't hire bloggers or content creators for a job a copywriter should do. Don't hire print copywriters for web work unless they do both. And when you find a great copywriter, trust them... and don't let them go - because 10 bucks says, they're in demand or about to be.
-
What time of year is best to host a technology conference for entrepreneurs?
Hello! i help organize and run several events here in Arizona and attend many more. In my opinion this is a loaded question and the best answer I can think of is that it depends in where you live and the agenda of the event. Here in Arizona there are a quite a few right at the end of summer and many more travel from out of town to the events and more as the weather begins to cool. in general you don't want to compete with other events relating to technology even if they seem to be "non-compete" because you force your potential audience to decide which can reduce your attendance..and you will also lose the opportunity of having that other host attend your event. I hope this helps a bit. Please submit more questions :)
-
VCs: What are some pitch deck pet peeves?
Avoid buzzwords: - every founder thinks their idea is disruptive/revolutionary - every founder says their financial projections are conservative Instead: - explain your validation & customer traction - explain the assumptions underlying your projections Avoid: - focusing extensively on the product/technology rather than on the business - misunderstanding the purpose of financial projections; they exist in a pitch deck to: a) validate the founders understanding of running a business b) provide a sense of magnitude of the opportunity versus the amount of capital requested c) confirm the go-to-market strategy (nothing undermines a pitch faster than financial projections disconnected from the declared go-to-market approach) d) generally discredit you as someone who understands how to build a company; for instance we'll capture 10% of our market, 1% of China, etc. Top down financial projections get big laughs from investors after you leave the room. bonus) don't show 90% profit margins. Ever. Even if you'll actually have them. Ever. Instead: - avoid false precision by rounding all projections to nearest thousands ($000) - include # units / # subscribers / # customers above revenue line; this goes hand-in-hand with building a bottom up revenue model and implicitly reveals assumptions. Investors will determine if you are realistic, conservative, or out of your mind based largely on the customer acquisition numbers and your explanation of how they will be achieved. - highlight your assumptions & milestones on first customers, cash flow break even, and other customer acquisition and expense metrics that are relevant Avoid: - thinking about investor money as your money - approaching the pitch from your mindset (I need money); investors have to be skeptics, so understand their perspective. - bad investors; it's tempting to think that any money is good money. You can't get an investor to leave once they are in without Herculean efforts and costs (and if you're asking for money, you can't afford it). If you're not on the same page with an investor on how to run/grow the business, you'll regret every waking hour. Instead: - it's their money; tell them how you are going to utilize their money to make them more money - you're a founder, a true believer. Your mantra should be "de-risk, de-risk, de-risk". Perception of risk is the #1 reason an investor says no. Many are legitimate, but often enough it's simply a perception that could have been addressed. - beyond the pitch, make the conversation 2-way. Ask questions of the investor (you might learn awesome things or uncover problems) and talk to at least two other founders they invested in more than 6 months ago.
-
For every success story in Silicon Valley, how many are there that fail?
It all depends on what one decides to be a definition of a "success story." For some entrepreneurs, it might be getting acqui-hired, for some -- a $10M exit, for some -- a $200M exit, and for others -- an IPO. Based on the numbers I have anecdotally heard in conversations over the last decade or so, VCs fund about 1 in 350 ventures they see, and of all of these funded ventures, only about 1 in 10 become really successful (i.e. have a big exit or a successful IPO.) So you are looking at a 1 in 3500 chance of eventual venture success among all of the companies that try to get VC funding. (To put this number in perspective, US VCs invest in about 3000-3500 companies every year.) In addition, there might be a few others (say, maybe another 1-2 in every 10 companies that get VC investments) that get "decent" exits along the way, and hence could be categorized as somewhat successful depending on, again, how one chooses to define what qualifies as a "success story." Finally, there might also be companies that may never need or get around to seeking VC funding. One can, of course, find holes in the simplifying assumptions I have made here, but it doesn't really matter if that number instead is 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10000. The basic point being made here is just that the odds are heavily stacked against new ventures being successful. But that's also one of the distinguishing characteristics of entrepreneurs -- to go ahead and try to bring their idea to life despite the heavy odds. Sources of some of the numbers: http://www.nvca.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ven... https://www.pwcmoneytree.com/MTP... http://paulgraham.com/future.html Here are others' calculations of the odds that lead to a similar conclusion: 1.Dear Entrepreneurs: Here's How Bad Your Odds Of Success Are http://www.businessinsider.com/startup-odds-of-success-2013-5 2.Why 99.997% Of Entrepreneurs May Want To Postpone Or Avoid VC -- Even If You Can Get It http://www.forbes.com/sites/dileeprao/2013/07/29/why-99-997-of-entrepreneurs-may-want-to-postpone-or-avoid-vc-even-if-you-can-get-it/
-
How much equity should I ask as a C-level executive in a new startup ?
As you may suspect, there really isn't a hard and fast answer. You can review averages to see that a CEO typically becomes a major shareholder in a startup, but your role and renumeration will be based on the perceived value you bring to the organization. You value someone's contribution through equity when you think that they will be able to add long-term benefits, you would prefer that they don't move company part way through the process, and to keep them from being enticed by a better salary (a reason for equity tied to a vesting arrangement). Another reason is when the company doesn't have salary money available but the potential is very strong. In this situation you should be especially diligent in your analysis because you will realize that even the best laid plans sometimes fall completely short. So to get the best mix, you have to be very real about the company's long-term growth potential, your role in achieving it, and the current liquidity necessary to run the operations. It should also be realized that equity needs to be distributed. You cannot distribute 110% and having your cap table recalculated such that your 5% turns into 1% in order to make room for the newly hired head of technology is rather demotivating for the team. Equity should be used to entice a valuable person to join, stay, and contribute. It should not be used in leu of salary that allows an employee to pay their bills. So, like a lot of questions, the answer is really, it depends. Analyzing the true picture of your long-term potential will allow you to more easily determine the correct mix.