16 Year Old CEOs, What Has The World Come To?
brandonpaton.com
brandonpaton.com
When I was younger I remember starting "companies" and trying to be really official about it even though I had zero experience and didn't know shit. Who cares? It was fun.
Very sad. I'm glad I got out a couple weeks before hand.
One thing that I want to tell them is to keep their eyes open and explore new interests. I hated the idea of business because I thought it was evil, but college opened my eyes to the startup world because I kept an open-mind and tried out different things. Since then it's become a big part of my life and I love it. =)
I'd also say that being more realistic and grounded will drive you more to achieve that level of success people often believe they've reached in their illusions. If you're a CEO of a revolutionary web 2.0 company operating in stealth mode, and you don't see any traction, you'll be more likely to give up because reality isn't falling inline with the ridiculous expectations you've set in place.
I will admit, I am guilty of this at times.
I suppose the impression is that an academic would only fall back on his/her title because he/she is not particularly well known and needs some way to impress others. It looks bad.
Why is this different in industry?
The difference between academics and business is that "Dr." and "Prof." are appointed titles, while CEO is self-given without having to meet any prerequisites or requirements.
A top academic is well known and everyone will automatically assume that he/she has a PhD and a respectable position at his/her university, so mentioning the title is redundant.
Thanks for making me hunt, asshole. Anyway, he didn't go to high school and is an "autodidact."
Anyone can technically become a CEO for $89. It only has meaning when attached the success of companies.
These self-appointed titles formulated as acronyms, C[insert domain]O, is the quintessential cue that capitalists are self-important militarists. Of course I mean militarists only in the lightest (and perhaps hyperbolic) terms for how a large corporation organizes their positions (occupations) of power internally and behave or affect some group(s) of society.
Internally, most notable positions of power are denoted by their domain of command then rank (or title), highest obviously being an 'officer.' Externally the company as a whole will only act on its interests while engaging a so-called 'threat' in a 'fight or flight' fashion. I often forget how young capitalism really is, and while this characteristic is certainly less apparent in smaller organizations it is the 'de facto' operative standard in how larger corporations conduct their-self in the market.
Something that I didn't appreciate until I was in grad school was that not all professors are even "Professor." Becoming a full professor is a big deal. An "Assistant Professor" is generally someone who has a tenure-track position, but does not have tenure yet. "Associate Professor" is for someone who has tenure. "Professor" is for someone who has tenure, and has contributed enough to the school through research and teaching to earn being a full professor.
Similarly, "that guy commanding the ship" is called "captain" regardless of actual rank [1].
But then once the guys in sales get more impressive sounding title, everybody wants one and thus, title inflation.
If you cringe at that, watch this funny bit http://www.kungfugrippe.com/post/218485518/merlinlabs
(And yes, his company, Comcate, is a real company with employees and everything.)
Though I do agree with the general principle - it's why I decided that the title of Research Fellow at the Singularity Institute was more honorable, even though I could easily get something with "Director" in it.
But there really is a flipside; not everyone gets the countersignalling. I met with a Congressperson once who told me that if I wanted to meet with Congresspeople, I should have gotten a bigger title - the phrasing was something along the lines of "Executive Directors get into the office, Research Fellows wait outside" (said in a friendly and helpful way).
Similarly, at a gathering of VCs, someone said to me afterward: "When you introduced yourself as a Research Fellow, I thought you were just a scientist."
I guess in the larger world, people really do go around judging by titles, even if from in here it seems like obviously easily fakeable fluff.
If this isn't happening then it's probably better to call yourself a founder, director, chief instigator, etc. Although it really depends on the culture of the people you're selling to and/or trying to raise investment from.
Even "Founder", to me, seems to imply a certain amount of effort was involved above and beyond the base paperwork.
If your company exists more on paper than in practice, skip the titles and just list yourself as Owner or "Self-Employed".
Many many many many people of all ages have managed to generate some cash flow from their determination and inventiveness. It's no great accomplishment, in the relative scheme of things, to have managed to generate a couple hundred thousand dollars in above the line revenue.
A Founder or CEO type title is, again IMO, appropriate when you have created something that has started to take on some life of its own, and might have a slim chance of continuance in your absence or departure. Or, when you have managed to convince some non-relative to give you a 7 figure investment.
I just dug out some old business cards from my little venture in the 90's. I just listed the company name, what we did, my name and contact info. The legal paperwork listed me as President or CEO, IIRC, but in the day-to-day operations I was just the guy that ran the joint. The company managed to do a few $MM in revenue, net me a bit o' cash and employ a couple of people besides myself.
This is especially true if you are the ONLY person in your company. Saying you are the chief executive officer at least implies that there are other officers.
I met a CEO and member of the Young Presidents' Organization (YPO) several years ago. In the brief time I knew him, he inspired me. I know it's a cliche but his attitude was infectious and amazing. Every year, the YPO picks a different city to party and network in. That is the club that you might aspire to be part of.
Strict requirements. Responsible for full operation of a qualifying (by revenue) corporation or division by age 45. Yes, they require at least 50 employees (which may be more tailored to traditional business)
That would be a horrible 45-year-old CEO. If you don't learn something in those thirty years that can't be applied to give you an edge on a sixteen-year-old, you're doing something wrong.
Age deserves more respect, imo. It's extremely unlikely that any sixteen year old would be a businessperson than a forty-five year old.
It's a simple form you fill out and pay a few bucks, and bam, you are now the CEO of an incorporated startup.
Personally I'd feel weird calling myself a CEO unless my company was making ~60K(basically a salary) or I had some funding to at least prove my legitimacy.
My advice is use the CEO tag if you're following a strategy to get stories around it which you'll use to achieve another end(hopefully making money somehow). Don't use it just to feed your ego.
Yeah. I sometimes think about what the entrepreneurial funnel for these seemingly uber bright kids looks like. I've always felt that each additional year x% of kids that looked like the next (insert some top name) drop into the average John.
And of course, every year many average Johns that did not grow up as "CEOs" turn into CEOs.
I've learned my lessons over the years. No more any kind of story around me. If there is a story, it should be about my start-up. Of course, I am also 22 now but you'll find out the reporters' infatuation with age and hyping up an individual never really ends.
There are some folks that actually excel from this sort of publicity. They end up writing a book or two that actually sells. I realized I'm not one of them and self-publicity is mainly a distraction at least at this point in my life.
I've never liked people that pull age. I remember when I was thirteen pretending to be in high school because I thought that high school was a big age on the Internet; within a year I'd started to lie about being a college student because I didn't want to be treated differently than the people I talked to. As a result, when I see people whose web pages brand themselves as HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT first and CEO second and don't list any real accomplishments, I feel a sort of sneer, because I know there're just as many people that age who're quietly learning to do things till they become prodigies at the age of 25.
It is fun, though, when somebody discovers your age and fawns over you like you're some little darling prodigy. Not a wholesome fun, more like a smirking "You care more about my age than what I've done?" Some people do it because they think it's polite, but other people sincerely think that young people must be the smartest people on the planet and young people that know better laugh.
Just like you, I did not tell my age to clients when I was 14-15. But that was more out of fear. Ones that found out before giving me the project(via sites like rentacoder/elance) would never pick me. So I quit sharing my age until later into the project once I'd knocked their socks off. Ironically, I was able to provide a better service to clients back then than I can today. Today I care wayyy more about money/ROI. Back then I only cared about the actual work. Money was almost zero motivation.
I find, funnily enough, that the people who succeed the most past being young are the people who find passion in what they do at an early age. So embrace what you love! That's what you'll find it easiest to grow at.
However, we do also get feedback that we need to give ourselves business titles so that people know who they are dealing with. Last night I was submitting a slide deck for a presentation I'm doing at an investor conference in a couple of days. The last slide I did was "The Team" slide. The team is currently just me and my co-founder. I actually wanted to put "business guy" and "techie girl" as our titles, but its a fairly strait-laced conference so in the end I put CEO and CTO.
I did feel a bit awkward doing that, knowing that it's just the two of us. I am positively cringing now after reading that article!
You might want to try something like: Dick - Runs Operations, Sales and Business Development. Jane - Responsible for software, technology and server farms.
If either of you have some past experience to draw on, maybe add that in too: Dick - Formerly performed similar duties for BigCo. Jane - Previously scaled operations for WebCo.
I find this similar to the use of the title CEO in start-ups. If you advertise that as your title, there is no reason you're doing that other than vanity. If there's one of you, you're not the CEO - you're just the guy doing things. If there's three of you, then you're just one of the guys who makes decisions. If there's twenty of you, you have a proper corporate governance structure, and all you do is manage and plan, then maybe call yourself a CEO.
If you're really concerned about your title between the sizes of three and twenty employees, you're worried about the wrong thing. If you really need one for some reason, call yourself Founder (if you founded the company) or President (if you have the ultimate decision-making power and preside over decisions). If you don't do either of those things, put the words "Senior" or "Director of" in front of what you actually do and speak like you've got some authority.
When I ran my small company my title was owner. There was only one employee so it was obvious who "found" it. And sinced I financed it it was me who "owned" it.
A teenager with an entrepreneurial spirit is rare as is and perhaps even paradoxical in the most stereotypical case, but a teenager disciplined and willful enough to build a business (web-site/service) attractive enough to sell and humble enough to remind us they still have a lot to learn is probably one in a million.
I don't mean to swing on this kid's nuts, I'm merely trying to make the point that a majority of early-blooming entrepreneurs wearing fancy acronyms/job-titles assume they know too much too soon and have a hard time adapting their business and their ego when X takes a turn for the worse.
They used to deliver newspapers and mow lawns and babysit. All that has changed is what teens to for spare cash, and their self-perception.
This trend is a lot more about labels than about any changes in what young folk do with their time and talents.
It's come to ageism.
"However, I cringe when I hear the title “CEO” used lightly. To me, it conveys a lack of humility and a desperate call for attention."
Lacking humility and making desperate calls for attention? High school is all about lacking humility and making desperate calls for attention. Calling yourself the CEO of your personal non-incorporated company would be par for the course, not a shocking breach of decorum.
I can't think its much different than my having pretended to be a wizard doing magic on the occasional weekend night.
I think that the sad part about this is that teenager's imaginations have slipped to the level where the geeks among them now play at being things that actually exist.*
Kids these days...
*= Although I am a lisp programmer awash in a C of embedded systems guys (read: warriors), so pretending to a wizard and saying a bunch of mumbo-jumbo incantations that only I understood (and then blasting my enemies with fireball!) may have been some sort of pseudo-apprenticeship.