You Can’t Hand Out Big Titles Like Jellybeans
Whenever we hire an executive to help grow the business, titles often become a concern. This is especially true in the early stages of a company’s growth, when we may lack the resources to attract top talent. Offering an impressive title that begins with “chief”—such as Chief Operating Officer, Chief Human Resources Officer, or Chief Technology Officer—can be an effective way to entice a top performer to join your team.
But I’d like to caution you about the practice of handing out big titles as if they were jellybeans.
Sometimes, it’s better to give someone a title that aligns with their strategic responsibilities. Proper titling is essential because there are often unintended consequences when you “over-title” someone—and those consequences can be harmful not only to the company, but also to the individual you’ve hired.
In many cases, handing someone a CXO title instead of a VP title will come back to bite you.
Why Over-Titling Happens (Especially in Growth Companies)
Let’s be honest: early-stage companies often operate with limited budgets and big ambitions. You may need someone who can own a function and move fast, but you can’t afford the compensation package that typically comes with an executive-level role.
So titles become a bargaining chip.
A “Chief” title feels like an easy substitute for salary, prestige, or long-term opportunity. And sometimes, it works—at least in the short term.
The problem is that titles create expectations, both inside and outside the organization. When expectations don’t align with reality, the ripple effects can be costly.
Matching Titles with Strategic Responsibility
One drawback of giving someone a title that doesn’t accurately reflect their role is that they may start to believe their own press coverage.
In other words, if you give someone a CXO title to entice them to join the team at a lower salary, they will eventually notice the discrepancy. They’ll research what people with that title typically earn—and when they realize they’re being paid far below the market, they are likely to ask you for a raise.
That raises an uncomfortable truth:
You hired them for the work of a VP, which is a much more operational role than a CXO position.
And that’s where the real problem lies.
CXO roles shape strategy. VPs execute it.
CXO roles should be involved in developing business strategy, while VPs are responsible for executing that strategy within their functional areas.
There’s a big difference between the two.
The COO Example: Strategy vs Execution
Consider the role of a Chief Operating Officer.
A COO may be responsible for developing a strategy to enter a new market. To do that effectively, they must have a comprehensive understanding of the company’s operations—volume, supply chain, staffing, equipment, margins, and scalability. All of that gets incorporated into strategy development.
A COO has a unique ability to process and synthesize varied information across the organization. That ability distinguishes them from a typical VP, who is responsible for executing their portion of the strategy.
A VP of Operations might be excellent at running the day-to-day business, improving efficiency, and ensuring execution. But the COO sits at a different level: they are responsible for the strategy and the operational roadmap required to get there.
The CHRO Example: Proactive Planning vs Reactive Support
The same distinction applies in HR.
A Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO) develops a strategy for recruiting and retaining talent. To accomplish that, they need a deep understanding of the market, workforce trends, compensation dynamics, and the organization’s long-term growth goals.
They also need the authority to invest in hiring and development strategies that ensure the business has the talent required to pursue its goals.
Unlike a VP of HR, who is reactive and often told what to do, the CHRO is proactive. They develop the plan, aligned to the business strategy in the first place.
This is exactly why matching titles with strategic responsibility matters so much. A CXO title implies the person has the mandate—and capability—to build strategy, not just implement it.
Be Cautious with Titles
It’s essential to exercise caution when assigning CXO titles—not just for the company, but also for the individual who may be eager to enhance their resume with a prestigious-sounding title.
For example, I recently interviewed a candidate for an operations position. The job posting was for a VP of Operations role. However, during the interview, the candidate expressed interest in being considered for a COO role.
The response of simply agreeing might seem like the easiest solution.
But here’s the issue: while the candidate had an impressive background in operations management, they had never worked at a strategic level. In my opinion, they had the potential to reach that level, but they weren’t quite ready yet.
In this case, hiring the individual at the VP level and outlining a path to eventually earn a promotion to COO would have been the smarter move.
The Hidden Damage of Assigning CXO Titles Too Early
Assigning CXO titles to individuals who aren’t prepared for them creates real challenges for your organization.
1) You block more qualified candidates.
Once that role is “filled,” you’ve effectively shut the door on bringing in a stronger strategic leader who could help the business grow.
2) You may hurt growth by putting the wrong person in the wrong role.
Having a low performer in a high-level role forces you into an unpleasant decision:
Do you demote them? Or remove them entirely?
Both options can be messy.
3) You stall internal talent.
It also blocks high performers below that CXO (who should be a VP) individual—people who want to progress, but can’t as long as the “wrongly titled” person sits above them.
Over-titling doesn’t just create a compensation issue. It can create an organizational bottleneck.
The Bottom Line: Titles Are Commitments, Not Incentives
To avoid these issues, exercise caution when assigning CXO titles if a VP position is a better fit.
While offering titles might seem like an easy way to attract talent, it can ultimately cause significant problems—for the business, your talent pipeline, and the person you hired.
There are unintended costs when you hand out titles like jellybeans.
The safest approach?
Match titles with strategic responsibility, and build pathways for growth instead of inflating titles early.
Because handing someone a CXO title instead of a VP title will often come back to bite you.
