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?"

Comments

CEO? Sounds like a lot of work

[LunaticTippy]

I wouldn't want to deal with the bs that a CEO has to deal with. Meetings, dressing the part, pandering to investors, etc.

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.

get VERY used to saying "no" to suggestions

[linuxbaby]

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.

Re:get VERY used to saying "no" to suggestions

[BewireNomali]

from personal experience, VC guys shy away from 50/50 situations for two reasons: 1) that results in stalemate... it conceptually ends in deadlock should principals disagree; and 2) it suggests that the participants in hand are less than honest about their respective contributions to the relationship, which means there could be trouble ahead.

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:There are plenty of shots to go around

[Elwood P Dowd]

So make him CFO.

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.

Business strategy

[denissmith]

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.

Stop quarreling

[linuxwrangler]

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.

If you have to ask....

[ghinckley68]

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.

CEO is the public relations person.

[rossifer]

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

Who has more business sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Who has more business sense?

[theobscurest]

I'm not sure why this was modded down, but I have to agree with this. I founded and own a business with a partner and we were advised to do exactly this 51/49 split. Although my business partner is one of my best friends, we have covered ourselves well through our operating agreement, in the event anything bad ever happens. Also, if the two top people (who are at the same level in our case and presumably in your case as well) cannot agree on something, decisions can still be made by the person holding 51%. In our case, it made additional sense to do it this way, since if I, as a woman, hold 51% or greater ownership in the business, it is legally a woman-owned business, which may be some advantage for us in the business world.

Hate to say it...

[Bogtha]

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...

[McCarrum]

... and asking for advice, even from Slashdot, is a bad thing?

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.

There are plenty of titles for you both.

[LurkerXXX]

So let him be CEO, and you take the title of President.

Google precedent

[mnemonic_]

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.

The right guy for the right time

[TopShelf]

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.

Re:There are plenty of shots to go around

[yuri benjamin]

So why not make the finance guy the CFO, make the techie the CTO, and they hire someone to be the CEO.
The CEO is answerable to the shareholders - ie the submitter of this question and his friend.

invest in some experience

[ecklesweb]

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.

50/50 My Hairy Ass!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

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?