Title Delay Strategy
"I'm most against director and VP titles. Because those are the titles that lead to the most contention in the company, that lead to the most conflict, that lead to the most disgruntlement and heartache and managers having to constantly... And people basically staying on for the title, to put it bluntly, versus because their scope and impact." - Gokul Rajaram
What It Is
Title Delay Strategy is an organizational principle for startups: avoid granting director and VP titles as long as possible. These titles create organizational debt, make it nearly impossible to upgrade roles later, and shift employee focus from impact to status. Instead, use descriptive titles like "Lead" or "Head of" that accurately describe responsibilities without creating hierarchy debt.
Gokul saw this work exceptionally well at Square, where Jack Dorsey instituted the practice after seeing titles weaponized at Twitter. The result: zero conversations about title promotions, freeing managers to focus on scope, impact, and compensation instead.
How It Works
The Problem with Early Titles
Title Inflation Creates Upgrade Problems:
- If you give someone VP of Engineering at 25 people, what happens at 250 people when you need a different leader?
- You can't demote someone from VP to Director without losing them
- The only option becomes letting them go entirely
Titles Become the Goal:
- People start optimizing for promotion instead of impact
- "I want to be promoted to Director" becomes a personal goal
- Energy shifts from doing great work to status signaling
Titles Cause Internal Conflict:
- Director vs. Senior Director debates waste management time
- People compare titles across functions
- Frustration grows around perceived inequities
The Alternative: Descriptive Titles
Instead of hierarchy titles, use role descriptions:
| Instead of | Use |
|---|---|
| VP of Engineering | Engineering Lead |
| Director of Product | Product Lead, Caviar |
| Senior Director of Sales | Sales Lead |
| General Counsel | Head of Legal |
More words = more focus. The more descriptive words in a title, the more clearly the role is defined.
What Square Practiced
At Square, Gokul was simply "Caviar Lead" and his reports were:
- Caviar Product Lead
- Caviar Engineering Lead
- Caviar Strategy and Operations Lead
- Caviar Sales Lead
This eliminated title discussions entirely, allowing focus on scope and impact.
How to Apply It
Set the culture early - Establish no director/VP titles from the start; it's nearly impossible to roll back later
Use descriptive alternatives - "Lead" and "Head of" accurately describe seniority without hierarchy debt
Save certain titles for specific moments:
- General Counsel - when dealing with Wall Street/public markets
- C-suite titles - when external credibility is essential
- Never give these at 25 people when you'll need different leaders at 250
Redirect conversations - When people ask about promotions, discuss scope, impact, and compensation instead
Explain the tradeoff - Help people understand they're getting more scope opportunity in exchange for title flexibility
When to Use It
- Building a company from scratch (easiest time to establish)
- Hiring leadership roles at early stages
- When you anticipate significant growth ahead
- When you want to preserve ability to upgrade roles
When Titles Matter
There are exceptions where specific titles provide value:
- General Counsel for legal credibility
- C-suite for external partnerships
- When recruiting someone who explicitly needs the title
- Public company requirements
Source
- Guest: Gokul Rajaram
- Episode: "Picking where to work, hiring, investing, and product development"
- Key Discussion: (00:41:48) - Strong opinions on titles at startups
- YouTube: Watch on YouTube
Related Frameworks
- Scope Over Title - Prioritizing impact over status