An entrepreneur emailed me late last night and asked what I thought about a startup company not giving titles to their employees. In the example he presented there is basically the founder/CEO and then there is everyone else.
So, my response was that it depends on the size of the company and also the people involved.
When a company is launched, I can't say that I jump up and down fuming the company doesn't give titles to their employees. I think it is more important that everyone understands their goals, their role at the company, what everyone else is responsible for and everyone is held accountable. At Red Hat, I don't think everyone had titles until we reached 100+ people or so. It didn't bother me.
But the way I look at it, as a company scales, titles work even better. I also like titles when employees interact with the outside world. Customers and partners want to know who they are talking with. I think that part is actually the most important.
This seems a little odd. I could understand with perhaps 2 employees, but beyond that a company needs to have clearly delineated responsibilities.
Those outside the organization also need some indication of who's-who, as well as those on the inside. Whether a potential client or partner, it’s nice to know who I am talking to.
I understand the emphasis on team work and unity, however even in the best functioning teams, players are still assigned positions. Creativity and synergy can still be encouraged without eliminating any indication of structure.
Posted by: Kevin Packler | September 13, 2007 at 08:43 PM
Titles can be tricky in a small startup. Hand out too lofty a title and it becomes hard to layer on top of people as time passes and needs evolve. But if you aim too low, that person may not be perceived to have enough stature outside of an organization.
I'm a big fan of avoiding titles until it becomes obvious you can't live without them.
I do believe that founders taking titles can be helpful, though, to signal to the inside and outside world what the real roles are. Layering founders in the future will be an issue if the individuals allow it to become one regardless of title, based simply on the founder status, so the benefit to clear communication about role overrides.
Where is the point where the benefit of titles outweigh the costs? Certainly at 100, but in many cases probably less than that. It follows the famous "it depends" rule!
Posted by: Chip Griffin | June 30, 2007 at 09:33 AM
It's a case to case basis. People do know where they stand. How can a company can't give such titles while they hire people with specializations? Maybe they're not the manager or supervisor but still you have your own title of specialization that you can use.
Posted by: chad brownstein | June 28, 2007 at 11:12 AM