Slashdot Mirror
Should the Computer Science Guy Be CEO?
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?"
Seriously, if this is anything big enough to where you have investors, let your friend be the CEO. Go ahead and take on the role of CTO or whatever 3-initial title you find appropriate.
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!
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
(or the terrorists win)
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.
Man, you really need that seminar!
I think you should become the CEO as they seem to be closer to the ideas and workings of the company (the "visionary"), whereas the Financial types hammer the books and tell you how much you can spend on your ideas (not as irreplacable as you are). There's no reason salaries and perks can't be similar. Finally, it often doesn't matter what the title is, as long as things are working out. But I still think it should be you.
-m
http://www.invisik.com
Tell the potential investors that this really is 50/50, and refuse to compromise on that. It would be a fatal mistake.
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.
Use neutral third party as the judge and scorekeeper. *Loser* takes CEO job, as it should be.
The best companies are the ones where the founders realize early when to get the right people into those jobs. Just make sure you two split 50-50 the stock. And, make sure to use a lawyer to set everything up (incorpating, division of stock, etc.).
You could be COO/CTO, he could be CEO/CFO.
Have fun!
. 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
Don't corporate structures have it so that there are different positions at the same level? Like, if he's CEO, then you're "President" or "Chairman of the Board" or something?
The business strategy is not strictly finance or product, and the proper person for the CEO position is the one that best understands and represents the strategy - marketing, client relations, team leadership, growth areas. Just knowing who was trained for what is not going to answer this question. Who can inspire a team of coders on rewrite? Who can bring opposing views together and get the best out of everyone? You need to rethink the position in light of what the challenges to the business are, not what specialty the parties studied. That said, finance guys are not always the best choice for start-ups.
I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
Don't waste your time thinking about whether or not you are being robbed by your business partner and more time thinking about whether or not you are being robbed by your investors.
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
If your friend has been working on the business plans and can serve as a "face" for the company, then he should be the CEO, if only for those reasons. He should probably also be the CFO, although most finance students out of college don't have any practical knowledge to speak of. Since you're clearly the nuts and bolts guy, you should be the Chief Operating Officer, or COO. When I interview clients to evaluate their companies, I ask the CEO or CFO about the financial questions and the COO about the operations.
:)
By the way, I will have to charge you now for my corporate planning advice. Just kidding (but not really)
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
If you have to ask then you do not need to be CEO find some else. I also have my own software company and I have some one else be the CEO I am the chairman of the board so I have the last say if I feel like it but rarely use it. Do what you do best let some else do the rest.
Linux modi 2.6.26-2-parisc
To start this off: no matter what, you're both "Founder".
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
My $.02
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
I know lots of CS people who are Ferengi, and I know lots of finance people who are numbers geeks. The person who has more business sense - capitalism, sales, greed, and also management skills - should be CEO.
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.
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.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
So let him be CEO, and you take the title of President.
Who's the better bull shit artist? That's your CEO
I've co-founded several companies - a couple of them are gone, a couple of them are still around, none household names, but all were fairly serious efforts (VC-backed, one had 30 employees, etc.) I've got a CS background and started as a software engineer, and I've usually been CTO of the companies I've co-founded. One way to handle it is to be both CTO and chairman of the board of directors. One of the jobs of the board is to oversee the CEO.
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!
One CEO, one President.
Done.
Honestly, I'm surprised non of your investors suggested that.
-EvilMagnus
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, if you want your business to succeed, the jobs should go to the person that would be the best at it. And then salary can be split however you feel is fair.
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 for your friend, CTO/Head of Engineering for you). Frankly, if your company will require many more people and you need to recruit - you should probably pickup an HR type droid and make him CEO... boost his ego, make him useful for now, but set the expectation he will be the VP of HR when the real CEO shows up.
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
I can think of several companies started by and run by techies. The multi-millionare who lives a couple of blocks over from me started out as a machinist. Running a company is a matter of vision. The technical skills (financial or programming) will get your company going but once you start hiring other people, it's your vision that will propel the company. There are plenty of tasks to go around. You don't just need one person to be the 'boss'. Divide up the work according to what you enjoy. Take equal pay checks. Make it a real partnership.
In any event, most startups fail. Make sure that, if you give it your best shot and it doesn't work, you still remain friends. Many of the people I know had to try several times before they hit paydirt. Look at the big picture and don't get too wound up.
BTW. Many people think that MBAs are the worst thing that ever happened to North American business. The correlation between being a good manager and having business training is approximately zero. (Trained managers will, of course, disagree. I invite them to cite any statistics that prove otherwise.)
QNX has a really nice structure, they have two co-founders. One is the CEO and one is chairman of the Board and they switch every year, but they really run the company together. You can do that, and have you has CTO and your friend as CFO (titles you'd keep).. Titles like Chairman and CTO, and CEO/CFO are really cool.
Titles don't matter nearly as much as your written legal agreements - especially with the VCs but also with your partner(s).
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.
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
Google's CEO, Eric Schmidt, has a PhD in CompSci from UC Berkeley; the two founders are both "presidents" of separate divisions. Then again, Google would probably be succesful with 10-yo CEO; their success relies on mature businesses along with continuous innovation, not marketing (have you ever seen a Google commercial?). But at my company (Eclipse Aviation, an aircraft design startup firm) the CEO serves a distinct purpose from the engineers. He has a business background but he absolutely believes in our company's goal. He probably doesn't remember his calculus, but he can sure as hell sell our product, to wealthy lawyers or government officials. He's the face of our company, somebody that other businessmen can feel comfortable with (Paul Allen among others). Our CEO is the face of our company, and the media loves it.
Are you a number crunching geek who puts people to sleep during presentations? Or can you captivate an audience with a mundane software project? Are you a Steve Jobs, or a Bill Gates? At its best, a CEO can lead a company through cut-throat business and coddle its consumers. At its worst, the CEO is little more than a figurehead who won a power struggle. Powerstruggling is an aspect of business of course, but a team player will always get further than the one tries to steal the other's thunder. Don't be an asshole and let the business dude run the business, unless you want to stop writing code.
do you really need investors? how much capital do you both need to get things running?
and fair.
Flip a coin!
Shiny. Let's be bad guys.
The salesman should be CEO, whichever guy that is. CEO is a job for a people-person. Its about selling... Selling investors on the company, selling potential partners on the idea, making strategic decisions that improve the ability to sell the products and in a 2-man operation, selling the product itself.
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.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
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 problem, you should think about which of you has a deeper grasp of things. That's why Gates was so good at it, even though he started with more of a programmer POV. It's true that you spend most of your time selling, but that didn't stop Gates, and understanding things is a big plus to selling big.
In the end, it's in your best interests at this point to go with whatever will protect your stake in the company and make it fruitful. I would be somewhat wary of him getting the CEO title, if I was inclined towards having strong opinions - just because it would be likely he'd make a decision I wouldn't like and my only recourse would be to go through the board (time consuming and indirect at best).
It kinda sounds like both of you are in it for the title though, and that's something to be wary about. I think you should really be more focused on who's best willing to handle the responsibilities.
On the other hand, if it's really you that's done the lion's share of the work, and your friend has just been there largely for moral support, then it's lame for him to get CEO because he basically did nothing.
I own an LLC and yes... Technically I'm the CEO, but until I find myself making millions of dollars (only in my wildest dreams) and have to answer to shareholders, I won't go around conforming to what typical CEO's are doing.
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. Organizing now like you are multi-million dollar company is kind of pointless until you get your product/service out the door or at least in a nice presentation for potential VC's.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
It's hard for us to comment who will make the best CEO because we don't know you or your partner. You will know the person best to lead the company to success; talk it over with your business partner, with friends, and let it ride until the natural answer emerges.
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 no mention of your name, then you've got a good base to start from. Love your product and your customers, not yourself.
2) The CEO gets ultimate say on how the company runs. However, you will both be assigned duties in your managerial roles; make sure those roles are clearly assigned. Who handles the budget? Who handles the tecnology direction? Who handles the marketing direction? Under normal circumstances, that person will be solely responsible for their departments.
It's only in an exceptional circumstance that the CEO should veto any decision, and there should be some serious discussion if it happens. Make sure the CEO is not a micromanager!
Best of luck with your business.
Isn't Bill Gates a techie who is the head of Micro$oft? That proves to a certain extent that it can work.
Ethernet (n): Device Used to Catch the Etherbunny
Make your friend the CEO, not only does he have the business knowledge, but you will have more time to work on cool stuff.
MOST IMPORTANTLY:
CEOs get fired when things go wrong and the investors/board want someone to blame.
I'd say if your big enough to have investors, consult them for advice.
Or if you want to make a decision
MBA = CEO/CFO/COO, so he can deal with the parts he knows best
Techie = CTO and Chairman of the board (ala Bill Gates), all the power and it will minimize the day to day operational and finance issues from your world.
The one with the vision needs to be the leader.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
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 what decisions to take, simply because it's 'your company' - you have far more information about the details of your business than anyone else, have put far far more thought into it than anyone else, and everyone else who gives you advice is inherently doing so from a position of far less information and thought than you. This has been my experience with my business so far. So while I listen to everyone's advice, and take it all in, I first think carefully about whether or not it really applies to my business. I seldom say "no" to anyone giving suggestions though and I don't "push back" --- I just nod and listen, then go think about it for a while.
Also, what you "should" do isn't always necessarily what's "best" to do in the sense that you probably also want to have fun as you go. If you only ever do what you "should" do, i.e. what is logically the 'best thing for the company', you may well forget to actually enjoy what you're doing, and end up in a position where you don't really want to be.
To that end, my suggestion to the submitter is to simply ask yourself "do I want to try out this CEO thing" -- "does it appeal to me?". If you want to be CEO, then unless you suspect you'll be so bad at it you'll run the company into the ground, just do it, even if it's not "optimal". If it turns out that you hate it, you can always just swop around after a year or two and let the other guy be CEO. And then you'll know.
I'm the CEO of my small business (computer science guy turned CEO), and while I enjoy some aspects, one thing I definitely miss is having much time to actually code --- I hardly ever have time for it anymore.
Why not ask The Woz ?
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Letting Jobs be CEO sure worked out well for Woz...
Man1: "I want to be the captain!"
Man2: "No, I'm the captain!"
(ship sinks)
Robbed? This is a great example of people who think they are better than what they really are. The business person should be CEO, not the technical person. This guy wants the glory of being CEO when he doesn't even know what a CEO is supposed to do.
The CEO needs to be business savvy, has to be a politician, has to be able to keep the focus on business goals, etc. He also has to be an incessant saleperson, as well. You have NOTHING of what it takes to be a CEO. If you have great technical ideas, stay technical.
Actually, you know what, buddy? Yes, you should be the CEO. I love hearing stories of how egos rip apart otherwise great friendships/companies, etc.
WTF is any Slashdotter qualified to decide who's qualified to run a corporation? Most of us can't even run a betting pool.
Bill Gates isn't CEO of MSFT.
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.
Speak to your investor, "We just have CTO and CFO, there is no CEO...", loud and clear.
take the CIO, CTO, COO whatever. You'll get to a place at some point where you will be dealing with so much crap as CEO you'll miss the hands on tech stuff that you got your CS major to do.
Supplies!
Which one of you is taller?
I've been witness to both sides of this equation. There are no easy answers, because human nature is so f'ed up.
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, the nerd/scientist CEO will spend all his time dealing with accusations of being "inflexible" and "not suited to the job."
If the business major gets the CEO position, the nerd/scientist gets relegated to the CTO position. The nerd/scientist will only last with the company until (a) the CEO decides to oust the nerd/scientist so he can keep all the glory for himself, or (b) the venture capitalists have decided that the idea factory is no longer worth keeping on the payroll. If (a) doesn't happen, then (b) almost certainly will, unless you can avoid the VC trap altogether.
In the particular situation described by the querant, I feel bad for him because regardless of which path is taken, it will probably end badly; either way, the friendship between these two men will likely disintegrate.
The moral of the story is: There are no friends in business. Friendship and business don't mix, so don't go into business with someone you actually consider a friend.
The geek perspective: Business people exist in a culture of exploitation, though of course they don't see it that way and will bristle with indignation if you suggest so. To me, this doesn't change the fundamental facts. This isn't a screed against capitalism! I rather like capitalism. I just have a problem with "business" people. MBAs in particular are people I have no use for, as most of them are parasites.
The only real solution: If you're a geek and you want to start a business, learn how to run a business yourself and absolutely refuse to buy into the concept that someone can go to school to study "business" without understanding the actual business/market they'll be dealing with.
Maybe I'm just being cynical, so take everything I just wrote with a grain of salt. Unfortunately, it looks like the querant is already stuck with his partner, so the best advice I can give is this: Yield the CEO position to the other guy, make sure you're a CTO, and make sure your contract is iron-clad and bulletproof. And retain a good lawyer in case your buddy tries to sideline you. Perhaps even demand a majority stake in the LLC (51%) if you can negotiate that, as compensation for giving up the power position. But whatever you do, have a good, ruthless lawyer at your beck and call. Make sure that if they have an option to get rid of you, it's an expensive option (for them), so you'll be able to land on your feet.
I've been there and also worked for the VC side. Here is my advice:
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 YOU but about the organization you create and how it works and making that organization succeed. If you talk and say "me" instead of "we" you are not the right person for the job.
But more, the CEO gets to make the final decisions on things, that is he job, because the CEO is the one ultimately held responsible and accountable for success or failure. In the vast majority of cases, the founder management usually are replaced by more professional management as the company grows. Yes, Dell and Gate and the Google guys all stayed at the top of the companies they founded, but this is the exception not the rule. that means whoever is CEO is likely to get replaced *IF* you actually succeed and grow the business significantly.
Finally, as someone else said, your legal agreements are key. The number of partnerships that go bad is huge and the break ups are messy. Assume the worst and get things defined in writing. Also make sure that you and your partner have agreements that say you Will vote each others share to put the other one on the Board. Ands remember that it is likely that if you raise VC you will not be in control of the company because while it is your idea it is there money and if you ask for someone's money they want control.
Really, this all depends on the stage that the company is in. If (as it appears) that this is in the very early days and the task at hand is to take this great idea and bring it to market, then the "idea guy" (in this cash the techie) is probably the better choice. Once the flame is lit, the business grows and it's time to start focusing on day-to-day profitability, the stronger the case becomes for a "business guy" to take over, much like what's happened with Google. The two founders are still hugely important figures, but they brought in a true pro to run the operation.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Questions like these prove we're in another bubble.
It doesn't really matter that you're CS and he's Finance. What really matters is which of you will give the company the best leadership. The two of you should be able to agree on that. If not, it could be a long and rocky road.
Dave Williams
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 the business has an increased risk of failure -- without a good marketable product, even excellent financial decisions will not help, if you don't have an IDEA for a product.
Finances are important, because you need resources to develop technology based on an idea. Finance decisions need to be made well, or the business has an increased risk of failure. The IDEA may still be an asset, but without the resources to develop it well-managed and supporting the most important elements of proper research & development, marketing, and manufacturing, you have no product based on the idea.
There are other things that are very important for a business that develops a product, that are not finances OR technology, but are related to them both: Where and how you get supplies, how you get your great new technology made into a product, i.e. how you get it manufactured, how you price and sell your products, and how you protect the business, like any warning labels you need (Legal) and how the business chooses to represent itself and its product (Public Relations).
There are decisions to make that involve many things other than finance, and added finance background is no indication that one guy should be CEO over another guy: it will depend almost entirely on things that have not been mentioned in the article.
The best CEO may be neither of you, or both of you -- it depends on your other abilities, like Leadership skill, and experience in CEO roles.
If you are 50/50 in terms of power, then perhaps you should consider Co-CEOs despite investor nervousness, or find and hire a third person to be officially "labelled" CEO; give that person a 2% stake in decisionmaking, leaving each of you a 49% stake, and agree that the CEO has no special to a final word: final decisions are always ones that either all 3 of you support, that 2 support and 1 opposes, or that 2 of you support and the other is not available on an extended basis.
Giving that third person a 2% stake, assures there would normally not be a "tie": where neither side agrees, so no decision is made. I'm afraid if you place the other guy as CEO, even if you're supposed to be 50/50, you've given him de-facto, authority to break ties in his favor, and with only 50%, you can't later deprive him of that right once assigned -- of course it depends on the wording of your agreement the CEO's job description, and his ability to have either agreement/description ammended without you having to read and sign off on the change.
Really he should be CEO, you should take several of the lesser titles to make employees know you are both powerful. You could takes titles of CIO, CTO, and Enterprise Architech. Something else you should think about do you want to spend a large amount of time dealing with investor relations, hr issues, accounting, and so on. If you guys are both majoring in what you like, I would think you would prefer to be involved with technology and he would prefer to be running the business side. If you both have equal shares of stock in the end who cares about titles. For an example look at Sun they are being led by a man who has technology at his core not business and it is only half successful.
Mal: Do you want to run this ship? ...well...you can't!
Jayne: Yes!
Mal:
A real CEO already knows the answer to the question.. That's why they are the CEO.
When you've gotta ask the question should I be the CEO.. the job isn't meant for you.
CEOs do not last; you want to be CTO, especially if VC is involved.
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 interests of the company, rather than in their own best interests (i.e. you try and make it their best interest to act in the best interests of the company).
Some people also try to elect themselves as board chairman: that's another position you won't be able to keep, when your founders have two board members, and you have a number of other people on your board, the VC's are generally going to get what they want out of things that come to a vote. If you try to control this by *not* bringing in other people on your board, you're making a bad business mistake, since these are the people who are going to get your product initially adopted into other companies, and who will get your product talked up to other companies at other board meetings (i.e. your Uncle Bob is not a good choice for board member, unless Uncle Bob is already on the board of a Fortune 500 company).
In my experience at startups, one of the founders starts out as CEO, and then get pushed out of that position. Also, in general, the CFO and CTO positions are less likely to get pushed out of the management structure, as time goes on. At the very least, you will need a fallback, or your will have formed a company only to get a lot of stock and become an employee (and *maybe* a board member; maybe not, depending on the amount of stock).
Bottom line is that if you are going to take VC money, and you want some control over your company direction, make sure that when you get pushed out of the CEO/President/other top role, that you have a fallback position that the VC's aren't going to want to take from you.
-- Terry
Being CEO is incompatible with doing any of the productive work of the business. It's a full-time bureaucracy job. Assuming you were basing your business model on your ability to do something, you need to be free to actually make the shots, not spend all of your time calling them.
If you are [C]hiefly handling [T]echnical matters, it makes more sense for you to take the title of CTO (Chief Technical Officer). This is from the standpoint of someone who has run a corporation with outside investments.
Your friend, with business experience & the business degree is best suited for CFO or CEO, and will likely be able to converse with investors & potential clients on a financial level that people would expect someone with that title to be able to.
You on the other hand, since you came up with the original concept, should have stewardship over the implementation and management of the projects that will form the foundation of your business. You will also be responsible for speaking to investors & potential clients on the technical aspects of your business, plans for scalability, redundancy, etc. and essentially convincing them that it's a "Good Idea"
In terms of getting "Ripped Off", make sure that your stock is split evenly when you incorporate, and you're fine.
/~mikeg
CEO of a two-person company? Whoopie. Seriously, I'd keep "C-level" titles off the business cards until there's enough people to fill up a conference room. In smaller companies, I've seen people split up into the "sales director" and "operations director" and get away with that.
In this case, since it is equal partners all along, you need to move on and give and let give. As a CS major myself, my biggest concern is not coming up with good ideas. It is putting them to reality, bringing them to life. I think you should let him become CEO and be the brains behind this project by taking in the CTO if nothing else. However if you still feel robbed, do it the google way. Both of you become presidents and guide the project together for now and bring in some other expert with proven experience as the CEO.
First off, congratulations on having found potential investors! There are many who have had great ideas but could get no further than the idea. That investors are interested enough in your project that they are looking into HOW to make it work is a major accomplishment. 'Tis easy to focus on problems and to not take comfort in successes. There will ALWAYS be problems... celebrate what you have already accomplished! I promise that kind of an attitude will help wonders in making it through the challenges that WILL come.
<TIC>OTOH, I hope it was NOT your intent to go to your partner and tell him, "8 out of 10 geeks on Slashdot think I should be CEO, so that settles it!" :^)
</TIC>
That said, I have to ask: "Why does the CEO have to be one of you two?" Sure, it's nice to have authority, but in my experience that brings responsibility for those decisions, too. When you're up to your eyeballs in alligators trying to get over a hurdle in development, do you really want to be totally overwhelmed with management problems, too?
I'm sensing there is a fear that you are going to be boxed into a corner with the *responsibility* to do something, but lack the *authority* to carry it out. That's an understandable fear. Your potential investors have fears, too. I have no idea of how much funding you're seeking, but if I were to put up, say, $1 million, I sure as heck would like to know that common, typical problems would not arise and cause the company to fail. Having a deadlock situation on critical decisions has to be high up on the list.
I would offer, therefore, a suggestion: hire a CEO. S/he would have the responsibility. But you (plural, both of you) would ultimately have the authority as you are the co-owners of the company. Better yet, you will have the input of an interested third party. One who just might be able to provide an objective, tie-breaking perspective that would not have come to either of you.
I can already imagine you're thinking: "We can't afford to hire someone else." Let me ask you this: "In light of your current problems in trying to make THIS DECISION, can you really afford NOT to?" Many, many more difficult decisions will come along. You've already had to spend considerable time and effort trying to solve this problem. How much mre time will you have to give up for those new problems? Hire someone you can trust and let THEM do the dirty work FOR you! Be honest... wouldn't you rather be programming right now instead of dealing with this?
Seriously, you might even find that your investors have more than cash to bring to the table. I would not be surprised if the already have someone who would do a better job than EITHER of you ever could. S/he can bring real-world experience of what works. And more importantly, what DOES NOT work! Just make it abundantly clear as you set up your company that the CEO works for YOU.
In the end, it's just a job. If things don't work out, have the company buy out your shares (you DO have that in your articles of incorporation, right?) and then go off and start something else. I've found it's okay to make mistakes, I just try to make new ones each time! <grin>
Lastly, I'm sure you have heard the adage: "hindsight is 20/20." I've found much wisdom in that. So, why not draw on that wisdom, today? When faced with a difficult decision, I have found it extremely helpful to practice what I call: 20/20 Foresight. Just imagine it's some time i
I'm sorry to disagree with most of the /. opinions, but so be it.
CEO is a title, not a job, different corporations have CEOs that are responsible for a variety of different tasks; reading the job description of different CEOs make many seem like different jobs, the only similarity being the title.
The most successful CEOs are those that have the best interpersonal skills and are capable of harnessing the support of his/her workers to accomplish organizational goals. Having a financial background is not always a requirement, nor is it always helpful. Often times, finance types are too focused on the details of the organization and are unable to think about long term strategy, personnel issues, and other decisions that are the priority of the chief executive officer.
If your partner is better organizational leader, has better interpersonal skills, or has a better vision of the future of the company, then by all accounts, he should be the CEO. If you feel that you have those abilities, then you should be the CEO.
As a private company, you have no obligation to declare a CEO - and at this stage in the venture, it seems like a better idea to use titles that more reflect your current roles (financial officer and programing officer, etc). If and when you decide to go public reevaluate the situation. Laws of various listing bodies (stock exchanges and what not) require the CEO to oversee things that perhaps neither of you are capable of.
In summary - CEO is a title that your organization only really needs if its going to go public. As long as you and your partner both understand your respective authority and talents within the organization, there's no need to be burdened with the overhead that accompanies the title. Stick with descriptive titles of jobs performed - (It's difficult to have a chief executive officer if there are no other executives.) When it's time to go public your company will have a better understanding of what's needed to function, what skill sets are available internally, and who fills what role. In more cases then not, the job usually goes to an outsider.
"All signs so far point to giving him the job, but I can't shake the feeling I'm getting robbed."
Sounds like you don't trust each other. Trust is needed for any relationship, but even more so for the "50/50" variety. Don't doom this before it starts, instead work out your trust and roles before you take the plunge.
PS. Now I sound like a marriage councilor.
The CEO's job is not to sleep at night. If he's sleeping through the night then he's not doing his job.
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 fairly meaningless anyway.
Good luck!
Amazing magic tricks
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 enough experience and perspective to justify some view that you just can't see now (like a non-owner as a CEO, or one of you takes the lead, or you've sold the company and it doesn't matter, or you're bankrupt and it doesn't matter).
Bottom line: Don't sweat it, this don't matter right now ... you BOTH have soooo much work to do that it's better to have the shared responsibilities. Dual CEOs don't look good on paper, so don't do that, but CEO/CFO and President/CTO will do for the first stage.
Besides, you are quite likely to know the better choice after taking turns for a while.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
If you don't have more than 50% legal control in the company, and the charisma to back it up, it will get fscked up on you. Relationships sour over time, and as money starts rolling in there will be tons of people with no vision and a lot of passion and power to drive things in the wrong direction. Don't get your hopes too high. It sounds like it's already out of your control. Enjoy the ride as much as you can.
That said, if you do have control and charisma, be humble about it and listen to both other people, your heart, and your mind.
Good luck.
CEO gives n% of shares to non-CEO. therefore one person is CEO and gets power while the other person gets power in the form of shareholders. or fuck the mentors, do co-CEO.
The key thing is that you get a voting seat on the board. I like the one suggestion of you being chairman/CTO while the more traditional background goes to the CEO. But maybe you really do want to run the day to day operations, staffing, bills, etc.. I'd think you have more technical work to do if you're starting small. Biggest mistake I ever saw in a startup was starting with a CEO, CFO, etc.. and so on and hasving no actual product.
I'm personally of the mind to hire the CEO as a non-founder and go with an upside down pyramid with the real power in the hands of the founders. But that's me.
Good luck.
Who has the MBTI type which more closely represents the needs and wants of this position?
/. for whether or not, perhaps you don't want it that much, or don't have the forcefulness for that kind of position.
If you've studied programming and have a deep interest in economics/business then you might be better for this position. A lot of programmers go this way. They get into programming initially, until they learn they want more. You seem reasonably entrepreneurial, so you might fit this build. Generally these people have an MBTI type of ENTJ. Where is real programmers and science types are usually INTJ. But this doesn't mean you can't be out of the norm and not work well.
Do the Jung Typology Test and find out more about yourself at Portrait of an ENTJ and here The Portrait of the FieldMarshal Rational
Overall for a business you need to know more about business/economics (and maybe some politics for fun?), not finance, not technology. Whom ever has the best skill set and want for this, should have the position.
If you have left it to asking for people on
Although remember what happened with Paul Allen and always stay firm with what's in your best needs! After all that's what business is, interacting entities all striving for what's best for them, and coming to a medium.
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
He's neither the CEO nor a techie. He's a cold-blooded businessman.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
From Wikipedia:
"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 person at Dell who wakes up and says "We're not paying the Microsoft tax anymore." Or the CEO would be the person at Ford who says "Alright, people have enough F150's, let's put a huge chunk of our R&D people into making a pure electric/fuel cell one."
It's in the CEO's best interests to listen to the CFO, CTO, and other three-letter acronyms. But a three-letter-acronym is focussed on a specific way of making the company better. The CEO is the one who makes the decisions governing the entire company, and most companies are not entirely about business. We hate the ones who are -- Microsoft, for instance.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Lets make this straight, what needs to be done in the business at first.
/50% deal someone ALWAYS gets ripped off since people don't invest equal amounts of time to the business.
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
Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
Second place I've noticed it this blatantly, and still just as wrong.
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.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Probably you.
Of all CEO-s I was under, it was always the understanding of the bussiness that mattered most, and company thrived under physicists, chemists or phylologists as long as they knew the bussiness model best.
Works like a charm.
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?
;) Also, I'm the janitor, cleaning crew and delivery boy.
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
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Let the finance people do finance but keep an eye (and auditors) on them. After all, look at Enron.
Curiously my "image-word" is "vassal", which is what you'll be unless you take the CEO slot.
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.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
I agree that there's enough for you to worry about without having to manage the company as the CEO. However, instead of letting your partner be the CEO, I have another suggestion:
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 someone who has demonstrated all three. I'd have to think that investors would be pleased to see some experience at the helm.
I've been in this exact situation... and while it's not a fantastic solution there actually is one;
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% vote in the event of a disagreement. The investors should go for that.
I did the exact same thing... I chose to become CTO as I didn't want the CEO position... as it turned out the CEO and I both had 49% and the CFO ended up with the 2%. I also agree with other posters that you'll never have enough time in your day to do all the work involved in running a company between two of you, especially as the company grows. It's quite possible for a CEO to have 2% and for both of you to become CFO and CTO respectively.
Of course, my business failed... but it wasn't the business structure so much as the fact that the market died (we incorporated in 1999, did 10mill in 2000, 22mill in 2001... then came September 11th and we did less than 5mill in 2002. We closed our doors in 2003 due to lack of business and a generally crappy economy for tech stuff. The CEO still does some business under the old company name, but it's not the same company at all and serves a slightly different market. However, the 2% owner became the "breaking vote" on more than one occasion... sometimes with me, sometimes against me... but it (a) kept the investors happy and (b) meant that between the three of us we could always reach some kind of decision.
First you say: and agreed from the start that everything will be split 50-50 (ownership, power, etc).
but then, in the same paragraph, you contradict yourself by saying: 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?
And so it begins. The disagreements, the disputes, the arguments, the overrides, the hurt feelings, the law suits, the end. You may have agreed to share all 50/50 but, it was a lie. You feel that it is yours and that you are entitled, indispesible, in charge. You've got major issues before you even start and who gets to put CEO on their business card is just the tip of the iceburg! If you have half a brain you'll get a lawyer, file patents in your name and "stake your claim". Look at Steve Wosniak or the guy that built the first Cisco router, where are they today?
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 & Medicare. State income tax. State unemployment tax. State corporate report. Sarbanes-Oxley. Blah blah blah blah blah...
And this stuff is boring. Tediously boring. Mind-numbingly boring. Possibly even suicidally boring.
The payoff, of course, is that the boring stuff is what leads to the big bucks. Nobody ever got rich doing interesting work. NOBODY.
My advice: Keep your 50% stock. Accept a job with a title like "Executive VP for Strategy" or "Chief Technology Officer" or some similar drivel. Make the finance guy the CEO. Give HIM the LARGER salary. Make him feel important. Give him the incentive to do all that boring-ass trains-on-time bullshit that would drive you insane. Take the smaller salary, give yourself a nice big office with lots of bookshelves and big desks and a comfy chair, close the door, unplug the phone, and spend all day doing the fun stuff.
Let your partner get the glory; as long as you've got your 50%, the money will take care of itself.
Nothing says the CEO can't report to someone. In fact typically the CEO would report to a Board of Directors or the company president.
Make your partner the CEO and a member of the Board of Directors. Make yourself the CTO, Chairman of the Board and President of the company. He reports to you but has primary authority in the day to day operations of the business. As company president you set the direction of the company, and thus give him instructions on strategic goals. Ultimately you could setup the structure so that as President you could fire/demote/replace the CEO if his work isn't taking the company in the direction you desire. He would still have 50% ownership, but that is a separate issue...
(IANAL, you should of course talk this over with a lawyer and your partner.)
The job of the CEO/President is to set the vision of the company. Your finance buddy may be good with the numbers side of thing, but does he have the 'vision'? IMHO, it sounds like it is you that has the vision. You know where you want to take your product, and even though you may not know the 'how' end of things, that's what the staff is for. They execute. You lead. Take the CEO job, and there's no shame in your friend taking an advisary position (CFO?) in the way of finances, etc.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
It sounds more and more like the typical CEO just doesn't fit the bill. Sounds like we need to replace all CEOs with other people or just take a look at the CEO position and see how we can redefine it.
Your friend becomes the CFO, you become the CTO, and you hire me as CEO. Problem solved.
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
Both Eric Sink (the founder of SourceGear) and Joel Spolsky 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.
Agree wholeheartedly with those recommending against pure 50/50 split. Even close partners can have an acrimonious falling out; don't have a situation that risks deadlock. Beside 51/49, another possibility is 49/49/2 -- with the small share going to someone mutually respected and familiar with the business. In normal times of agreement, they're passively along for the ride, perhaps a useful advisor. If there's a risk of irreconcilable disagreements, they can mediate and if necessary cast the deciding influence. Plan for the best -- consensus and success -- but throw in a few protections against the kinds of things that do occasionally happen.
As to who should be in charge, I can't give much advice on that, but here's a little insight and opinions I do have.
Which one of you would be a better CEO depends on the responsibilities defined for the position compared against your respective skills and talents in that endeavor. To outsiders, their first clue is your degree, but most smart people know that's just a piece of paper. Still, a lot of money is in the hands of people who don't know better, or don't care.
A well known example of a techie becoming a CEO, much reviled on slashdot, but still a disgustingly rich technophile, Bill Gates and the company Microsoft. Ok, you hate billy, fine, but the point is he's a computer guy, who made microsoft freaking huge as CEO. Now as to his expertise, he is probably mediocre as a computer guy, and as a financial type also. The trick is, the pond he decided to swim in was mostly populated by moneymen who didn't understand any tech, or techies who didn't know money. That gives someone who's got just enough of both to become a shark in the fishing pond.
Ok, now for some real life experiences. I've done tech support for a long time, and these are from real calls.
One company had a CEO that insisted on total access to the network, admin priveleges. Had no idea what he was doing and toasted some financial files. Really ticked off everyone. The admin set up a virtual network for the CEOs computer, so whenever the boss starts poking around in files, he doesn't really get to alter anything, and he has no idea he's been duped.
Many times I've had secretaries in tears because their moron of a boss broke the OS or other software on his computer, then informs the secretary to have it fixed by tonight or get fired. The boss then goes incommunicado, to cancun, or hawaii, or the mistress, board meeting, whatever. Sounds kinda mean, but that isn't the worse part. The secretary is looking at an executioners axe, and the unreachable moron has the whole computer locked with a password he never told anybody... I know there are various ways to get past all passwords, even bios passwords, but you never want to try to walk a non-techie computer illiterate through those steps over the phone. Besides, doing that for them can be considered illegal if anyone decides to be a you-know-what about it.
Ok, that's enough, hope you enjoyed the real experiences. And I can't guarantee that they are 100% true, I'm just repeating details of what came out in numerous tech support calls.
Oh yes, almost forgot, never let the non-techie futz around with techie stuff.
And good administrators are often hated by everyone and constantly called a Network-Nazi.
Sounds like you need to find a third option...
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 time dealing with accusations of being "inflexible" and "not suited to the job."
Or he will ignore the naysayers and concentrate on the things that make his company successful. After you succeed a couple of times, the accusations lose some of their potency.
If the business major gets the CEO position, the nerd/scientist gets relegated to the CTO position. The nerd/scientist will only last with the company until (a) the CEO decides to oust the nerd/scientist so he can keep all the glory for himself, or (b) the venture capitalists have decided that the idea factory is no longer worth keeping on the payroll.
On the one hand, you've got stock to keep your investment (with a non-dilution threshold). On the other hand, if you lose your idea factory, he goes on to make another company and you die slowly.
The only real solution: If you're a geek and you want to start a business, learn how to run a business yourself and absolutely refuse to buy into the concept that someone can go to school to study "business" without understanding the actual business/market they'll be dealing with.
This part I agree with - business is easy, the specifics are hard.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Your at the very start of the business (thats currently worth $0) and yet your already bitching about the politics of your title...jeez what a bunch of tossers!
Have you told your friend you feel like you are getting robbed? Your slashdot ID links to the company page so it would be easy for your friend to find out that you are talking publicly about this. If that isn't a problem that is fine but I sense it could cause tension.
The CEO must be a leader. CEO's must have own ideas about how to build this company, and convince the rest of the team to follow him. Therefore, you must review the current situation in your company. Are you in product design/development stage ? Do you have a solid marketing plan ? Do you have a solid business plan to bring your company from knowing the market, finding capital, design and develop products for that market, produce the product, market the product, manage your customers, and staff up and develop your staff, deliver the goods/services to the cusomers, and generate revenue. Are you in the marketing push stage ? Are you in the production planning stage ? The one who has the best ideas about what you will be doing in the next few years should be CEO. And, when your company reaches the next stage, you may have to find a different CEO. By that time, you may consider people other than the two of you.
Big
as a finance major...i can say that im sure you can write code, come up w/ great ideas. if this is so then let your 'finance' guy do finance and you can do what u do best. Code and idea. let him crunch numbers and call operations.