How uncommon is this? I'm looking for a cofounder, for an idea I've been working on. My focus will be on engineering in the early stages, since that will be key part of the company. And I'd prefer to have a cofounder manage the business side of things in the early stages, but still have full control over the business if needed. So the options I've been thinking of it are: a) Me as CEO and cofounder as COO or CBO reporting to me (I'll still get dragged into deal making and fundraising even if I don't want to). b) Me as CTO and confounder as CEO, but they report to me. (Having that CEO title will help them better in Schmoozing, deal making, and fundraising, which I'm counting on them doing in the early stages, to let me focus on the tech without being too involved in day to day business aspects) c) Cofounder is CEO and I report to them as CTO. But I'll be chairman of the board too, and will have more equity and board votes than them. (Still not the most ideal case, since if we were to get VC funding, the VC always tries to wrangle control of the board from the founders.)
Maybe check your ego and realize you will have to be part of a team with different responsibilities. Do you want to direct the company or focus on investor relations? Not to mention you probably dont have a business plan or know what youre doing
That's a very stupid suggestion.
I really enjoy how blunt people are on this app 🤣
At TRI (Toyota Research Institute), our CEO reports to the President. Anything is possible!
Thanks for this info!
You are way to focused on titles. Big red flag. I wouldn’t take the job.
You are looking for a COO not a CEO, the CEO reports only to the board and really to themselves. Any CEO who would accept reporting to the CTO is not a good fit for the CEO role
Problem is that I do not want to run behind deal making in the early stages, and large partners would ask to meet the CEO, if only the COO is involved in deal making. (Just silly human nature really). People wouldn't be that keen on meeting the CTO on the other hand, with the exception of when they have to get a better understanding of the tech. So I'm looking for ways to maintain control over the company, while minimizing the amount of time "wasted" in deal making and fund raising etc. during early stages.
You take MD + CTO Title, let CEO report to you
You take chairman of the board. CEO makes operating decisions
This is an option, but post VC funding, Chairman of the board is pointless since VC will have controlling votes. Also, I want to be the final gatekeeper of key operation decisions, with the exception of the board.
Same is true if you are CEO
hello, I can be CEO and can help with tech if necessary. we can do 51:49 in favor of you with a clause you give me 1% after 1 year. if it’s not working out then fire me before the year mark and i keep 49% and go my way. dm if interested
OP you can make him President or COO - the responsibilities would still let him take on the day to day ops and business grow, but you should be CEO and find a lead engineer.
Problem is that the CEO title is a pain in the butt, since everyone wants a CEO's time. And I need to focus my time on the tech in the early stages. This is the primary reason I'm looking for a business partner, to outsource those aspects to them as much as possible. I don't even mind being just the Lead Engineer, with the CEO "secretly" reporting to me, so that I don't get drained with day to day business problems that don't need my attention.
“Secret reporting” You’re watching too much Silicon Valley OP :D. You can structure your company however you like. Just get professional Counsel. A CEO should not be handling day to day and should only be making a few big decisions a day. COO will help filter. These titles are somewhat lofty and don’t mean anything in a startup anyway.
Based on what you are saying, you are not clear on responsibilities, who has power to do what and who is responsible for delivering what. You need should have a roadmap. Like what’s the best structure for next 2 years. And then what structure after two years. If you don’t have an mvp product yet, the primary goal is to have mvp out and get cash flow. That’s something the CEO has to juggle, between getting enough money, having the mvp and executing. Because the CEO has to decide if CTO is trying to build something more than Mvp and they funding isn’t enough for it. If CTO overrides CEO, the business has a hard time surviving. If you still building the product but has technical expertise and still want the business to survive, you have to do the CEO work and give someone to do the tech piece. And the business other guy just be responsible for funding. The CEO is the guy who gets the ultimate decision of budget and scope, and how to get customer money.
This is an oversimplification based on how corporations are usually structured today, right? But the reality is that there are some aspects of the business that the primary stakeholder has to worry about -- be it building the tech, or making sure that the bank balance does not hit zero. There are some critical subproblems that the primary stakeholder absolutely has to do (building the tech is one in my case) But there are some other subproblems that they primary stakeholder may be able to outsource to a cofounder (Schmoozing with people and deal making happens to be one such subproblem in my case). So I'm trying to see how to outsource the less important subproblems in this case to someone else, while spending my energy on what's most important.
Lol, wut?!