Tale of Titles in Startups

Just a few days ago, I was reading a discussion on Twitter around the topic of titles and designations in startups. It occurred to me how often elevated designations are used to attract talent, especially in the startup world.

There are varying schools of thought on this aspect. Many recommend this as a good strategy to give a boost to talent attraction. Probably because it takes almost nothing to get creative and churn up an awesome-sounding title that people would be proud to flaunt.

Take a look at this excerpt from a blog by Marc Andreessen:

Zuckerberg has a contrasting opinion — he feels titles should be meaningful and reflect who has influence in the organization. On this basis, he detests the ideology of handing out enhanced titles by the dozen. He feels that when there are numerous VPs and Chiefs in an organization, the level of influence becomes diluted and hazy.

My opinion on this lands somewhere in the middle, but slightly tilted towards the Zuckerberg school of thought.

• When a company is in its initial stages, there is so much room to make place for new rules and structures. That is why, if good candidates ask for great titles, they are granted the same, sometimes even at the cost of a lesser salary or a less-impactful role. The title is leveled up to a degree where the attraction of the title itself becomes a deal-maker.
• If this is the norm, then it is not wrong for a candidate to expect to join a startup for an enhanced designation. But should they? I am no judge to point out what’s right for someone, but to me, the title should reflect the actual role that the person is going to play or is likely to play over the next 3–6 months.
• Another point that crossed my mind was, how to plan the career growth of existing team members. When you take someone at a superficially high designation in the initial stages, and somewhere down the line as the team scales you want to put a leader in charge, do you create another higher title for the leader? Do you ‘demote’ the existing ones to fit the structure? My choice would be to keep space ‘up there’ for team members to earn that spot.
• Startups thrive on moving fast and being efficient. They don’t have the luxury to spend time on anything that distracts them from their purpose, such as constantly looking out for ways to move up the ladder. I feel deeply about quality work that creates impact and I’d prefer all my team members to dedicate their work time to this objective.

At Hevo, our view is not to over-commit on the designation, but to provide a title that matches the role. Take an example — imagine being a VP and having little to no work that actually supports the title. It’s a disturbing thought because, in the world outside of their current organization, this person will suffer an instant loss of credibility. And so, we will never knowingly put someone in this spot.

I genuinely feel that there is no right or wrong here. For some people, titles matter a lot, probably because they associate the title as the indicator of their career growth. It is their way of letting the world know where they stand on the career ladder. Titles are important, but I believe that titles alone shouldn’t be a means for a startup to attract talent or the reason for a candidate to accept a job. Titles are insignificant without an impactful role to go hand-in-hand.

I’m a startup Founder, and if I had a choice I would happily drop the ‘CEO’ badge and other heavy-sounding titles.