If two people start a company are they founders or co-founders?
18 comments
This just an artifact of english usage.
Joe and Jim start a company making widgetry for social networks.
Joe is a founder. Jim is a founder. Joe and Jim are the founders of the social network widgetry company.
Jim is Joe's co-founder. Joe is Jim's co-founder.
The "co-" prefix should really only be used where it removes confusion and makes it clear that there is more than one founder.
Joe and Jim start a company making widgetry for social networks.
Joe is a founder. Jim is a founder. Joe and Jim are the founders of the social network widgetry company.
Jim is Joe's co-founder. Joe is Jim's co-founder.
The "co-" prefix should really only be used where it removes confusion and makes it clear that there is more than one founder.
Also, if you type and/or say the word founder ten times, it starts to lose all meaning.
Hahaha, I overhead some baked high school kids in Starbucks today have exactly that conversation. (But I think the word was "snickerdoodle".)
Hahaha, I overhead some baked high school kids in Starbucks today have exactly that conversation. (But I think the word was "snickerdoodle".)
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamais_vu
From a linguistic perspective, the phenomenon that a word after frequent repetition seems to lose its meaning is connected with the very nature of words. A word as a unit of language has three characteristics:
* It has form, i.e. it is shaped out of sounds or, in the case of written language, out of letters (characters).
* It has function, which (among other things) means that it operates in a meaningful sentence.
* It has meaning, which implies that it refers to a certain unit of thought (a concept or an idea) within a context.
However, when a word is repeated over and over again, it is in fact only the form which is repeated. There is no sentence, so the function of the word is eliminated. Its meaning, too, is effectively eliminated, because there is no context. A few repetitions will leave the language user's memory and expectation intact: he remembers the meaning and expects a meaningful reference. Continued repetition, however, will more and more foreground the word form to the exclusion of function and meaning, until the word literally "makes no sense". It is not the word that is being repeated, but only one of its aspects: the word form.
From a linguistic perspective, the phenomenon that a word after frequent repetition seems to lose its meaning is connected with the very nature of words. A word as a unit of language has three characteristics:
* It has form, i.e. it is shaped out of sounds or, in the case of written language, out of letters (characters).
* It has function, which (among other things) means that it operates in a meaningful sentence.
* It has meaning, which implies that it refers to a certain unit of thought (a concept or an idea) within a context.
However, when a word is repeated over and over again, it is in fact only the form which is repeated. There is no sentence, so the function of the word is eliminated. Its meaning, too, is effectively eliminated, because there is no context. A few repetitions will leave the language user's memory and expectation intact: he remembers the meaning and expects a meaningful reference. Continued repetition, however, will more and more foreground the word form to the exclusion of function and meaning, until the word literally "makes no sense". It is not the word that is being repeated, but only one of its aspects: the word form.
If I type and/or say the word founder ten times, it starts to mean "to fail or utterly collapse".
I don't think it matters.
What I do find odd is where startups use the CxO titles... Can you really be CEO of a two person startup? Seems a bit ludicrous.
What I do find odd is where startups use the CxO titles... Can you really be CEO of a two person startup? Seems a bit ludicrous.
There are two reasons I see for doing something like that:
- The person is dealing with business-to-business transactions and their position should indicate that they're able to make decisions for the company.
- They were selected specifically for an executive role, rather than simply being a buddy of one of the guys starting things. At lot of startups are built that way.
- The person is dealing with business-to-business transactions and their position should indicate that they're able to make decisions for the company.
- They were selected specifically for an executive role, rather than simply being a buddy of one of the guys starting things. At lot of startups are built that way.
You can be a founder and also a position such as CTO and CEO, based on what you are contributing work-wise.
Shrug - Yeah, I know - I'm probably just being a grump, but it seems ostentatious to me.
It's critical for dealing with business people outside the startup world. It's hard to get them to take you seriously unless you're the CxO of something. That's why we use the titles at jtv anyway.
Ok - Probably just my experience - might just be a nomenclature difference between the US and UK/Aus/etc.
I assigned myself the title of UFO - Ultra-Freaky Officer - at one company.
Its the legal title if your incorporated.
I don't believe that's true. I believe that you have to have a President, but not a CxO.
Is that that case in the US?
I've had companies in other jurisdictions where this isn't the case - UK/Aus tend to use CxO for public companies. Private/limited companies tend to have Managing Directors, General Managers, Presidents, etc.
I've had companies in other jurisdictions where this isn't the case - UK/Aus tend to use CxO for public companies. Private/limited companies tend to have Managing Directors, General Managers, Presidents, etc.
Titles are meaningless. Especially the difference between minor variations of the same effective title.
In the end, both of those are the same thing.
In the end, both of those are the same thing.
At GitHub we call ourselves co-founders.
doesn't really matter, but I'd say that the co-founder label is more appropriate since it tells the person that you didn't do the whole thing all by yourself.
your other thing doesn't really make sense, they were called the founding fathers...which by itself means that there was more than 1.
your other thing doesn't really make sense, they were called the founding fathers...which by itself means that there was more than 1.
What is the Plural of 'Prius'? Pri-i? Prium? Priuseses?
I see a lot of people use co-founder when there are more than one starting team members, but the founders of our country weren't called the "Founding Co-Founders".
Also, if you type and/or say the word founder ten times, it starts to lose all meaning.