Titles and Decision-Making: Why CEO by Default Is a Dangerous Move

Assigning the title of CEO based solely on who had the original idea or who speaks loudest sounds harmless—until a growing venture grinds to a halt over unclear authority or misplaced decision-making power. In practice, the wrong leader in the CEO seat can create confusion, delay major pivots, and damage morale when early strengths aren’t matched to evolving needs.

Behavioral science research and field experience reveal that teams who explicitly discuss and match roles to real-life competence, not ego, fare much better, especially as new demands arise fast in growing organizations. They document who makes which decision, and revisit this plan as the company scales or key hires join. They’re also upfront: if a founder needs to step aside or shift to a different role, it’s about the mission, not personal pride.

Failing to address these issues up front can leave organizations with “title inertia”—people clinging to positions they can no longer serve, to the detriment of everyone involved. Clarity, humility, and written processes are the backbone of sustainable growth.

Pause today and put the CEO and major leadership roles up for open evaluation across your team. List what each person has accomplished and whom they’ve managed, not just whose idea started the group. Map out how decisions will be made when the group is small and after big milestones. If someone outgrows their role, spell out in advance what change looks like—don’t wait for a crisis. Take 20 minutes to discuss one role and document your plan tonight.