Note that if social status policing is a high priority, you should probably start working on rules for who is and is not allowed to call themselves a Founder, because as of late that title is receiving attention. (No lie: I once got told in the Valley that having Founder on my business cards was "A bit disingenuous, no?" because I wasn't as founder-y as Founders who founded foundable things.)
I have misgivings about the tendency to make "founder" a title rather than a reference to a historical fact.
Social status is only very rarely material to any given conversation, so I do care when people feel the need to bring it up, and when they feel the need to give themselves pompous titles, because they're signalling to me that they do care about status, and they're going to make it an issue in our dealings.
So no social policing - it just stirred some latent doubts about my current title :)
Of course in the end it matters little - this kind of silly discussion is good for a working Sunday afternoon. It's not like we can do anything to stop people from bandwagoning on the cool titles of this week...
Cordially, Ninja Pirate Space Robot Guru Software Proactive Artist Manager
It bothers me as well. I attended a social gaming conference during the height of the Facebook game fad, and every company had a "CEO", even if the company had one or two employees.
It's ridiculous, and only seems to be prevalent in the tech scene; when the plumbing proprietor shows up at your house, he isn't referring to himself as the CEO.
What does he refer to himself as?
Probably plumber - but what's the equivalent for a CEO? Head of Sales? Lead Developer? General Manager? The CEO's duties (at a startup) will vary from startup to startup. [I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm just not sure there's a better option]
This was a mistake.
It made it hard for external folks to understand who was the best contact for different types of requests, and we wound up with all of us doing every type of work.
It also made it internally, because we had inadvertently hamstrung our ability to specialize, even though we had unofficial definitions of what each of us did.
So we decided to stop giving a shit if somebody thought it was pompous, and we gave ourselves titles. It instantly solved a whole host of communication problems, many of which we hadn't even identified.
Don't be afraid of organization. Don't be afraid of titles. Don't be afraid of somebody who thinks that you can't be a CEO unless your company is of a certain size or maturity.
It turned out that titles exist for a pretty good reason.
I agree in full with this comment. I actually never introduce myself as anything other than "a co-founder of reQwip" and when asked to print my role, I try to stick with that, occasionally allowing (when pressed) for "ceo" rather than the ALL CAPS version.
Which is very core to the point I wanted to make. This startup founding experience is not the glamorous joyride that many imagine based on the VentureBeat and TechCrunch and mainstream media articles that we love to read. This is a "shit, $5 for a beer?! ... maybe I will have water instead ..." lifestyle.
Startup life is an out and out hustle and grind. You find money to oxygenate the flame wherever you can. You think outside the box for unique ways to bring attention to your company that don't charge by the click. You recognize there is no script, you will never be on top of things, so just #JFDI.
And most importantly, you put your ego on the shelf. You identify what you suck at doing and add awesomely talented team members who can kick ass in those areas. You accept that kids half your age are probably already doing what you are doing and can do it better than you, so you work even harder to stay competitive (or you partner with them). And wherever and whenever a situation requires you to roll up your sleeves and do the hard and unsexy work necessary to keep going and growing, you do that unflinchingly.
I do the latter a lot, in no small part because my teammates are indeed better than me at almost everything. My job is just to block and tackle so they can do what they are so good at doing and shine as a result. Coffee bitch? That's me.
And yeah, those Uber rides help me pay for that coffee (as well as our marketing, ads, etc.). #JFDI
I've found that using the 'CEO' title can make your company sound more established when dealing with people who aren't your peers - especially when doing business development with larger companies. Back when I was running an smartphone analytics startup, I had a 'CEO' business card for dealing with, say, Time Warner, and a 'co-founder' business card for dealing with indie game developers. This scheme seemed to work fine.
It's a bit clickbait, a bit common denominator - not necessarily bad things, it makes for easier reading
As I wrote a moment ago, I just call myself "a co-founder" of a startup and, when pressed on title, will use "ceo" rather than the ALL CAPS version.
A friend put it well: "Until you I-P-O, you're just a c-e-o."
Cheers, Dan (author of the article & a reQwip co-founder)
When you have traditional business and you are the only owner, you're simply "the boss" there is no point to have a CEO because everything the boss says is unquestionable.
source: I own several traditional business.
Wouldn't Chairman/woman of the Board be more appropriate then? I agree with the parent that Chief Executive Officer is a bit funny when there is only one "executive officer" (like calling yourself "lead developer" when you're the only one) but there isn't really a better option.