Should the Computer Science Guy Be CEO? 150
compuguy84 asks: "I'm a Computer Science major. A Finance Major friend and I are starting a business based on an innovative idea I had. I came up with the concept and developed the overall model we would use. He loved it, and we've been working on our business plan ever since. We've both donated our respective expertise, covered major ground, and agreed from the start that everything will be split 50-50 (ownership, power, etc). Unfortunately, the time has come to incorporate, and potential investors have advised against assigning Co-CEO's. So who should be the CEO? Should the Finance Major get the job based solely on his Business knowledge, or should the Computer Science guy get the job because it was his idea? We've both have shown ourselves to be savvy business folks, but I don't have the 'schoolin'. All signs so far point to giving him the job, but I can't shake the feeling I'm getting robbed. If it was my idea, shouldn't I call the shots at the end of the day? Has anyone been through this? What did you do?"
There are plenty of shots to go around (Score:5, Informative)
You're going to have enough on your hands just making sure that your idea gets implemented correctly. Let someone else handle the issues of licensing, stocks, quarterly filings and investor reports. Do what you each do best. Don't let your friend muck with the servers, and don't you go stepping in the books.
That doesn't mean that you should give him free reign or that he is more valuable. Make sure that if you agreed to split 50/50 in the beginning, that you are still split 50/50 as far as profitability and ownership goes. Just make sure that you're clear that if there is a technical issue to be resolved, you are the final word. Also make sure that you understand that a Finance Major should have the final word on financial matters.
As far as splitting "ownership, power, etc" don't bother. Again, let each of you do what he/she does best. Let your friend have all the "power" on the corporate side of things, and you have all the "power" on the technical implementation side of things. Leverage your strengths and don't let jealousy get in the way of bringing something to life.
And remember - keep him away from the damn servers!
Re:There are plenty of shots to go around (Score:3, Insightful)
If you won't be comfortable with the other guy calling the shots, then don't let him call the shots. How the hell should we know if this guy will be better at directing the company than you? Either one of you could be pushy idiots and we'd have no way of knowing.
Don't put an idiot in charge of your company, if that's what you're asking.
Re:Why not... (Score:2)
Re:There are plenty of shots to go around (Score:5, Interesting)
The right guy for the right time (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:There are plenty of shots to go around (Score:3, Insightful)
The CEO is answerable to the shareholders - ie the submitter of this question and his friend.
Re:There are plenty of shots to go around (Score:2)
The CEO is answerable to the shareholders.
But this comment, and several similar comments, make the mistake of asserting that the CEO answers to our hero and his friend.
The CEO should answer to those investors our hero is so interested in acquiring. And, in theory at least, if our hero and his friend take key positions on the Board of directors, they are supposed to answer to the shareholder, their investors.
If our hero and his friend make decisions the investors aren't happy with, the investor
Re:There are plenty of shots to go around (Score:2)
Ted Nelson tells the story of a friend of his, who founded a company, and wanted to avoid those boring meetings. At one meeting his investors decided to issue a second round of stock. He no longer controlled 51% of the stock, and those investors took control.
Add a non-dilution clause and you can keep your 51%, but you should still go to those meetings.
Re:There are plenty of shots to go around (Score:2)
It doesn't m
Re:There are plenty of shots to go around (Score:2)
The investors want 1 person to be in charge. This avoids a stalemate whenever the two founders disagree, though it doesn't get around the fact that in the end they'll need to listen to the investors. Its just that in general the investors can only be involved occasionally, and they can't waste their time resolving every difference of opionion these two have.
And they want
Re:There are plenty of shots to go around (Score:2)
I agree with that.
But call him the 'Acting CEO' or something. That way you show you have the intention of hiring a real CEO at some point and you can avoid some of the hard feelings.
Re:There are plenty of shots to go around (Score:2)
Re:There are plenty of shots to go around (Score:2)
What isn't a financial matter though?
"We should get solution X and not solution Y". "Sorry, but X costs more than Y."
"We should spend more time getting Z right before it gets released." "Sorry but that'll mean extra costs and less revenue."
The reverse applies as well of course - in a tech company
Re:There are plenty of shots to go around (Score:3, Interesting)
invest in some experience (Score:3, Insightful)
Hire an experienced manager to be your CEO. You be the CIO, he can be the CFO, and together you can be co-chairs of the board of directors (in which case your newly acquired CEO reports to you).
Running a business successfully takes some knowledge, some experience, and some luck. I think you'd do yourself a favor by bringing in s
CEO? Sounds like a lot of work (Score:5, Insightful)
If you allocate ownership equally he won't have more power than you do. Plus, you can use your tech skills to gather incriminating evidence you can use to blackmail him to your way of doing things.
Re:CEO? Sounds like a lot of work (Score:5, Funny)
Re:CEO? Sounds like a lot of work (Score:2)
Re:CEO? Sounds like a lot of work (Score:2)
You (Score:3, Interesting)
-m
get VERY used to saying "no" to suggestions (Score:5, Insightful)
In business, you'll ALWAYS have well-meaning people suggesting you go directions you don't want to. Push back. Show some backbone. Don't let others dictate your future. This is YOUR company, ONLY YOU decide how it's going to go. (In this case "you" plural : the both of you.)
ESPECIALLY at this early stage, you need to get VERY used to saying "no" to others' suggestions.
P.S. I'm "president and programmer" of my 60-person company. Yes, a computer guy can make a good CEO.
Re:get VERY used to saying "no" to suggestions (Score:5, Insightful)
I started my (independent pharm research) firm and took Chief Analytics Officer. My CEO is a finance guy who worked at a pharm for ten years. It was shaky, but I got three guys who had significant pharm experience and let them run the company and I was responsible for overseeing data collection and analysis.
Finance guys speak the same language. Let them deal with each other.
From personal experience, finance and management guys deal in broad strokes. Engineers and science guys are by nature pointillists, driven and consumed by meticulous detail. By very nature, these two types are diametrically opposed. Nothing good comes of the science guy pretending to be a manager (although it would be easier for a science guy to pretend at managing than the converse).
Also, nothing infuriated me more than having to sit through insufferably boring finance meetings. I longed to be in the lab, where I knew what the fuck was going on, what made sense... it was my domain.
I'd suggest that you consult with other VC guys and get the sense of what they say, but my personal opinion, from observation and experience, is that there is a very good reason for the disparate disciplines. Don't underestimate the value of a strong finance person with good market vision and what sounds like foresight (to get involved with your idea and invest time and energy and effort into it). In order for it to be the best it can be, refine your concept, and let him troll for cash.
Re:get VERY used to saying "no" to suggestions (Score:2)
I'm torn on this Ask Slashdot because I can see it from both sides. Personally, I think I would make a good CIO or CTO or maybe an executive level IT Project Manager, but
Boredom. (Score:2)
Also, nothing infuriated me more than having to sit through insufferably boring finance meetings.
I'm giving up mod points to reply here, but you're the first person I've seen mention the question of boredom.
Business people do the boring stuff: Schedule, organize, alphabetize, prioritize, distribute, beg, plead, cajole, backslap, laugh at stupid jokes, kiss ass - in general all the crap you have to do to make the trains run on time.
Did I mention paperwork? Federal income tax. Federal FICA & Medica
Re:get VERY used to saying "no" to suggestions (Score:2)
Re:get VERY used to saying "no" to suggestions (Score:2)
Just remember to have fun (Score:2)
You *should* listen to what the experienced investors are telling you about potential pitfalls to running a business
"About the potential pitfalls", yes, but not about what to actually do. At the end of the day, a lot of people are going to give you advice, some of it will be good, a lot of it will be bad (and which category the advice falls into often has little to do with whether or not the people are "experts" or "experienced"), and what you have to realise is that only you are really qualified to know
Pick the right person (Score:2)
You could be COO/CTO, he could be CEO/CFO.
Have fun!
Re:Pick the right person (Score:2)
Why? Because CEO / CTO deals with vision, direction, relationships, etc.
COO deals with day to day operations, financial issues, HR, etc.
Once the company gets going, you split both again. You may hire a good CEO for vision / partnerships or you may hire a really good technical person to be the CTO. Depends on where the skill sets fit the best.
On the other COO/CFO side, you get an anal finance guy as the CFO and a really good MBA type for COO. A COO has to be a really
Multiple "head" positions? (Score:2)
Business strategy (Score:4, Insightful)
Stop quarreling (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stop quarreling (Score:2)
CEO isn't the only C*O title there is, you know (Score:2, Informative)
If you have to ask.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If you have to ask.... (Score:2)
Hey, I think there was an article about you today! Yeah, here it is! [slashdot.org]
CEO is the public relations person. (Score:5, Insightful)
The job of the CEO of a startup is public relations. Whoever is better at this job should be CEO. In either case, you're the CTO and he's the CFO. Whoever isn't the CEO can also be the COO if you both want two titles.
If he's got better people skills, then he's the CEO and CFO while you're the COO and CTO. If it's you, then you're the CEO and CTO while he's the COO and the CFO.
To say it another way, there's a school of thought that you need to have some coverage of the three human archetypes (Maven, Connector, Evangelist/Salesperson). Whoever is the strongest evangelist/salesperson gets the CEO title.
Regards,
Ross
This is fundamentally wrong. (Score:2)
The CEO is in charge of the company. That doesn't mean he does PR.
When your company is run by PR, that way lies even more lunacy than when your company is run purely by tech, or purely by business.
The CEO needs to be a generalist who knows how to delegate, has common sense, and knows how to make the right choice.
Re:This is fundamentally wrong. (Score:2)
Obviously the CEO also has other responsibilities, including eventually leading the strategy and culture of the company, but when it's just you and the other guy, the thing that distinguishes the CEO from the other job is that the CEO is going to be t
Depends... (Score:3, Informative)
My $.02
Who has more business sense? (Score:5, Insightful)
DO NOT do anything 50-50 in your company. 50-50 is the road to misery. At the end of the day, one of you is going to have to be the one with the final authority, and the final accountability. Make somebody 51 and somebody 49. If you disagree, Mr. 51 makes the call, and gets the blame. In a 50-50 environment there is uncertainty about who makes the decision, and uncertainty about who is held responsible. This is not the way to run a business.
Re:Who has more business sense? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who has more business sense? (Score:5, Interesting)
It all worked out in the end; my father started his own business (100/0
Re:Who has more business sense? (Score:2)
Re:Who has more business sense? (Score:2)
Next time do 51/49, with a buyout requirement in the event that the subserviant partner is required to leave and/or take a demotion.
What so many people who like the idea of a 50/50 split don't understand is that choosing 50/50 is like decidin
Re:Who has more business sense? (Score:2)
The fact that you have strong feelings about this now, and that the two of you are conflicted over who should have the decision making authority demonstrates that your company was/is ripe for a very costly power struggle if you were to maintain the 50/50 partnership. As hard as it sounds, make the decision now and the company will be better off in the long run.
As for who should be CEO - many posters have provided good ideas, but I would like to point out that if i
Re:Who has more business sense? (Score:2)
You've just touched on the point I wanted to make, so I'll agree with you and elaborate...
Any answer of who gets to act as CEO needs to include the full realization that incorporating makes it no longer "your" company. Incorporating basically means you have sold out and now draw a salary (and a hefty portion of the profits in the form of dividends), but the relationship now resembles an
Hate to say it... (Score:5, Insightful)
But if you need to turn to Ask Slashdot for advice, you shouldn't be the one that makes the tough decisions for your business. You readily admit he's the better guy for the job, so let him do his job and you do yours. You have an equal amount of shares, so ultimately you are equal no matter which of you is CEO.
Re:Hate to say it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Reading the threads here, looks like some good advice - even if it is from both camps. Ask Slash allows you to gather (and cull) opinions and expand your mindview. And as a side note, good to see a Ask Slash that was interesting, from the orig poster and from (most of) the poeple submitting comments.
Re:Hate to say it... (Score:2)
Just my
Re:Hate to say it... (Score:2)
I for one, believe that they should give everything away as open source, and that making money is evil. Oh, and something about Bush... grrrr.
There are plenty of titles for you both. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There are plenty of titles for you both. (Score:2)
Job Title: Tyrant
Description: Don't fuck with the Tyrant.
Job Title: Evil Overlord
Description: Fires you for knocking on his door.
Job Title: Pirate Captain
Description: Arrrr!
Been through it (Score:5, Informative)
If it really were to come down to firing the CEO, or other major decisions like taking investment or expanding the stock option pool, you'd need the board to vote on this, and it sounds like you're set on a 50/50 stock split so you'd have equal say. But having the chariman title would at least be a signal to the outside world that you don't "work for" the CEO, which is really what the issue sounds like here.
I have actually seen one instance where a co-CEO arrangement worked, but I do think it's the exception. Whatever you decide, good luck, I hope the company is a success!
Re:Been through it (Score:2)
Re:Been through it (Score:2)
IMHO, the most successful startup companies have CEO as the top sales position. For the CEO position, technical and business knowledge/expertise take a back seat to charisma and leadership skills.
There is a very good chance that neither of you will be CEO by the time the company goes public. The more VC funding you take, the more control you give up. Lose too many seats on the board and you will be removed.
Easy solution (Score:2)
Done.
Honestly, I'm surprised non of your investors suggested that.
COO, holmes. (Score:1)
I have a similar dilemma, as I am also starting a business with a friend (although we both are Finance Majors). I suggest that you actually take on 2 titles like Chairman/CEO, President/COO.
Bottom line though, i
Doesn't really matter - you will be replaced (Score:2)
Seriously both of you lack the skills needed to be CEO - the job takes a Rolodex (that you don't have), experience (that you don't have), and the ability to create things like a coprate culture (that you probably don't know about).
For now, who ever wants to be replaced becomes the CEO - with the idea that both of you have your long time possitions filled out (COO/CFO f
You can do like QNX (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You can do like QNX (Score:2)
Hire a lawyer (Score:2)
If you truly have a great idea, money spent on an attorney now is money very well spent. It may keep you from spending much more money on attorneys later and may even prevent you from losing your friendship with your partner.
Google precedent (Score:2, Insightful)
a different question (Score:1)
Easy Solution (Score:1)
Flip a coin!
The salesman (Score:2)
That's usually not the CS guy. Most of us got in to CS because we like building stuff. CEO is not a builder job, its a seller job.
Nobody can be both CEO AND CTO (Score:1)
I've been in your shoes and gone the CEO route. But it was the wrong choice because I was wrong about having somebody else to fill the CTO slot.
It's very hard to be BOTH CEO and CTO. The jobs are too different. So one dimension of your decision should be, do you have somebody good and in town and definitely lined up to be CTO if you run things?
Oh, and if the biz guy ISN'T CEO, then IMHO you want to make him COO. Look at Ballmer. He was a great COO, even if a horrible CEO.
If the CTO thing isn't a
the usage of 'robbed' really says something (Score:1)
It kinda sounds like both of you are in it for the title though, and that's something to be wary about. I thin
Eh... Why have a CEO at all? (Score:2)
Mostly... Since I do 90% of the labor, it is more like I am the Marketing, Engineering, HR, and all company departments combined, but I digress.
Just incorporate and split your ownership 50/50 for right now and do the things that need to be done in order to get the business moving. Organ
Needing to take the credit can destroy a business (Score:1)
I have two comments for you, though:
1) Be prepared -- right now -- to give up the credit. If you're in this for the fame, get out now because sadly it's unlikely to succeed. If you're happy to see your idea taken to its successful fruition but n
We Love to HATE Him (or just hate him) (Score:1)
Re:We Love to HATE Him (or just hate him) (Score:2)
He's neither. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Two men build a sinking ship... (Score:2)
Man2: "No, I'm the captain!"
(ship sinks)
Don't Ask Slashdot! (Score:2)
Although I hate to say it... (Score:2)
But he holds all the power...
Balmer IS the CEO, but when people talk about MSFT, it's BILL's company. He calls the shots. So you don't have to have the CEO title to steer the company.
Re:Although I hate to say it... (Score:2)
That's because up until a couple of years ago Gates was the CEO. He is and always has been the driving force behind the company, and though he gave up the title of CEO to Ballmer, he still made sure that he is going to continue to be in control. He only gave up CEO work so that he could fo
You should have asked these questions long ago... (Score:2)
If the nerd/scientist gets the CEO position, nobody will take him seriously, because of the herd mentality that most "business" people suffer from. They don't care for or respect anyone who isn't a "business" person like them. They only see creative types for the value of what they can do for the businessman. It's likely that venture capital will be next to impossible to acquire. Furthermore,
Re:You should have asked these questions long ago. (Score:2)
If the nerd/scientist gets the CEO position, nobody will take him seriously, because of the herd mentality that most "business" people suffer from.
I'm sure the founders of google would have something to say about that. The fact is, your advice smacks of passimism with no supporting evidence. Fact is, business isn't that hard, it's just irritating. The geeks can learn business better than business people can learn the technical stuff that is actually produced.
the nerd/scientist CEO will spend all his ti
CEO isn't about the glory, but about success (Score:2)
The CEO role is someone who will be the face of the company. You have to have the ability to articulate the vision, sell the product, sell people on joining, have a strategic and big picture view you are driving the company toward, etc. The CEO needs to have the skills to create organizations to match goals, problems and people. This is very key. Once you get past a small group and swart having an organization the CEO job is not about Y
Go Co-CEOs (Score:2, Informative)
If it makes potential investors nervous, you've got to ask why... It should make you nervous to take 50/50, and then give the other guy the official label and final word, unless it's purely symbolic and you agree something to the effect of "CEO in name only," with no special benefits, and an agreement to that effect.
There are lots of businesses in the world. The business IDEA is something very important however, it is your whole basis for starting. Technology decisions need to be made well, or th
He should be CEO (Score:2)
CEOs do not last; you want to be CTO (Score:2)
Expect that whoever is CEO will be pushed out in favor of whoever the VC's want to run the business. This won't happen during Angel funding, but it *will* happen in either the first or second round of VC funding, if your company gets that far.
In general, the CEO is a titular position, and it's one where you normally bring in a good schmoozer, and give him stock grants and options on top of that so that he or she hopefully acts in the best i
Avoid the job if possible (Score:2)
CEO of a two-person company? (Score:2)
Excluded Middle? Plus: Attitudes and Other Tools (Score:2)
First off, congratulations on having found potential investors! T
insomnia (Score:2)
You are the idea guy, so relish that position. Your job is to come up with the ideas and the CEOs is to make sure they HAPPEN. You can basically hang any operations/execution failure over his head, and he should welcome that responsibility and accountability.
One idea would be to have a scheduled change of CEO one year from now, and plan on shifting the executive roles among the two of you. Titles are f
play the name game (Score:2)
These titles would be relative; you might not want your business card to say both, since the President's partner is the "Vice President/C[FT]O" (not the CEO) and the CEO's partner is the C[FT]O (not President).
There is a lot of work involved in getting a company off the ground. At some point, you'll have to do a re-structuring. By then, you'll have e
Hate to sound like a pessamist prick... (Score:2)
That said, if you do have control and charisma, be humble about it and listen to both other pe
You need no stinking business expert! (Score:3, Interesting)
You need to develope the thing.
2nd you need to sell the thing.
3rd you need to do some paper work.
4th discuss with investors if you cannot do above well without pouring more money to it.
The 2nd part happens after most important risks related to business have already taken. And 3rd part isn't big deal until you have your start hiring people. 4th part is only important if you plan to hire or cannot sustain your living entire developement time.
So basicly if your thing isn't ready nor the business person do not add value to your business so you are already getting ripped off by giving him 50% of your business. And if its ready the business person should invest the money atleast equal to 5 times the salary you would of taken when developing the thing, in order to match your investment on the business.
I'd say read the Eric Sink:s articles beginning here. They teach part of the business part that geeks need to know. Basicly business part is easy if you need to know it. And computer guy is far better in the helm of software company than a business person. Since software person understands whats possible, and what not and proper technical trade offs.
Of course if he can do developement too and his domain expertice is needed for making the product then it wouldn't be obvious who should get bigger part. Oh and 50%
http://software.ericsink.com/bos/Geeks_Rule.html [ericsink.com]
Do waht we did - he is CEO, you are COB (Score:2)
We are in a similar situation. my mate and me, together, control 77% of the shares, on equal grounds. I am the IT brain in the company, and I act as chairman of the Board. He has way less IT background, and focuses on the daily operations as CEO, while also being in the board.
That puts me "officially" in the highest rank, which is a signal to customers and investors - we ARE a technology company. It also puts him into control of all the "getting revenue" stuff.
And it works.
What does a CEO do anyway? (Score:2)
I can understand CFO, CTO and COO being full-time jobs in most companies, but what are the responsibilities and powers of a CEO. Seems to me that in a two-person company, the role of a CEO is rather trivial.
p.s. As a one-person company, I'm CEO, CTO, COO and CFO all at once! I'm not PR though; too honest for that
What are the roles? (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly, I think it's a question of both what you want to do and what you think would most likely make the company succeed. Take and guard your ownership stake. Then stick yourself where you think you'll be most valuable. If the company can't survive without you, that's the value that you have. Just make clear from the begining that you intend the company to be run by consensus, not CEO fiat. If you've got a partner who is doing work that you can't or don't want to do but which needs to get done, that's a good thing. A CEO isn't all powerful, and if you two agree on that, I think you can be very happy and effective as a CTO.
What I did (Score:2)
Bring in a third party. Ask them to invest a little if desired... create three CxO positions; a CEO, CFO and CTO. Pick the role you want and create 100 "shares of the company". This third party, give them 2 shares... just 2% of the company. That means that the two "head honchos" have equal voting rights at 49% each, but there's a third party that has a "stalemate breaking" 2% share that can result in a 51% vot
A Couple of links (Score:3, Informative)
Both Eric Sink [ericsink.com] (the founder of SourceGear) and Joel Spolsky [joelonsoftware.com] seem to think so. (You'll have to search for the relevant articles yourself--I'm not going to dig through years worth of archives for you.)
Their thinking is:
On the other hand, the business guy is your friend and anyway, he's willing to talk to investors and answer the phone during the daytime (I'm assuming) so he's probably worth keeping around.
I think that what I'd do in your situation is give the business guy the job of CEO but retain a 51% ownership of the company. That lets him do the day-to-day business stuff and give the people he talks to a sense that they're talking to the guy in charge while at the same time letting you set him right if he tries to do something stupid.
Disclaimer: I have no actual experience in this. I'm just makin' stuff up.
50/50, 51/49. 49/49/2 (Score:2)
hmm... (Score:2)
One thing I noticed (Score:2)
Chief Executive Officer (Score:2)
"A chief executive officer (CEO) or chief executive is the highest-ranking corporate officer or executive officer of a corporation, company, or agency."
That's all.
Does the highest-ranking person have to know anything about business? Or technology? Or anything?
No, he can delegate all of these. What a CEO has to have is common sense, decency, and vision. At least, that's how I interpret it.
The CEO is, in other words, the person who makes decisions like "Don't be evil." The CEO would be the