????創業企業處于初創期時，應該如何創造新的方式來打造這些尚在襁褓中的公司，這一問題已經成了最近的一個熱門話題，我稱之為“企業開拓”。改造董事會會議【相關閱讀：為何董事會會議不是個好東西（Why Board Meetings Suck）】也是一種企業開拓的方式，它已經吸引了如史蒂夫?布蘭克和布拉德?菲爾德等頂級思想者的注意。

????我想為“企業開拓”問題再貢獻一條良策：取消頭銜。

????在商學院念書的時候，我學到了很多關于頭銜和等級制度的東西，也學習了組織結構的重要性。從商學院畢業后，我加盟了我的第一家初創公司，公司的名字叫“開放市場”（Open Market），目前已成為電子商務領域的領軍者。我發現這家公司的創始人的經營理念與我在商學院學到的東西有很大的沖突：他宣布在創業的頭幾年里，大家都是沒有頭銜的。如果出于某些外部原因，需要公司為你安一個頭銜，那不妨自己給自己杜撰一個。但是我們要避免在公司內部使用這些頭銜。換句話說，公司里沒有什么“副總裁”和“主管”，也沒有其他類似的上下級稱呼。

????為什么要這樣做？這是因為一家初創公司的流動性很強，角色總是在不斷變化，員工們的職責也在不斷演變，公司的報告結構也具有很大的流動性。而頭銜顯然就會帶來摩擦，在初創公司中，最需要避免的事情就是摩擦。如果不使用頭銜的話，就可以避免初期的員工被固定在他們的角色上，同時能夠避免報告結構和職責范圍形成定式。這一點非常重要，因為在初創公司里，所有事情在頭一兩年里都變動得非常快。

????比如在我的第一家公司里，我先前的一位老板后來變成了我的同級，后來又變成了由他向我匯報工作。不到兩年時間，公司員工的人數由0人猛增到200人。不到三年，我們的營收入從0猛增到6，000萬美元。公司成立剛剛兩年，我們就掛牌上市了。我們實在增長得太快了，根本沒有時間慢斯理條地坐下來安排頭銜，設立僵硬的等級制度。我在那家公司里干了五年，先后主管了許多個部門，如產品管理部、營銷部、業務開發部、專業服務部等，每個部門的流動性都很強。等到公司上市前后，我們已經通過這種方式成熟了起來，開始設置更加穩定的組織結構，當然這時候我們也開始設置正式的頭銜。不過在一開始的創業年頭里，“不設虛銜”的方式使我們的企業變得更加靈活。

????因此，當后來我創立了Upromise投資公司的時候，我也采取了相同的政策。我們的辦公室采取了開放的結構，也有一些職能團隊，但是組織結構的流動性很強。我們也獲得了快速的增長。我們公司的創業團隊里有一名年輕的成員，在創業的頭一年里，她的工作職責變動了四次。第一年過去之后，我們的組織結構變得更加穩定了，我招聘了一些高級主管，他們就是我的直接下屬，職責就是向核心管理團隊匯報工作，這時我才開始派發頭銜（如技術總監、營銷總監、財務總監等）。由于使用了這種頭銜政策，早些時候公司里也曾出現過一些摩擦和不快（比如一個年輕的MBA畢業生總是在外頭自稱是公司的副總，但事實上他在公司里顯然只扮演了一個小卒的角色，他的職能也很快掉到了底層）。通常說來，在創業階段，還不能確定應該把哪個員工放在什么位子上，也不確定什么樣的組織結構才能確保最佳的執行力。但是不需要設置頭銜，也可以明確員工的角色和業務流程。

????到目前為止，我還沒有辦法把這個政策系統地實施到我們所投資的初創公司身上。不過無論何時有新企業創立起來，我都會優先向創立者建議這個政策。不要讓你的創業團隊和早期員工太執著于頭銜和等級制度。相反，在創業的早期階段，它們是你要盡量避免的東西。

????本文作者Jeffrey Bussgang是風投機構飛橋資本合伙公司（Flybridge Capital Partners）的一般合伙人。你可以在Twitter@bussgang上成為他的粉絲。

????譯者：樸成奎

????There has been a recent dialog around a theme I'll call "hacking the corporation" - creating novel approaches to building young companies, particularly when they are in their formative start-up stage. One of them, reinventing board meetings (or, "Why Board Meetings Suck"), has gotten some attention from leading thinkers like Steve Blank and Brad Feld.

????I'd like to submit another item to add to the "hacking the corporation" punch-list: Eliminating titles.

????At business school, I learned all about titles and hierarchies and the importance of organizational structure. When I joined my first start-up after graduation, e-commerce leader Open Market, I found the operating philosophy of the founder jarring: He declared no one would have titles in the first few years. If you needed a title for external reasons, our founder told us, we should feel free to make one up. But we would avoid using labels internally. In other words, there would be no "vice president" or "director" or other such hierarchical denominations.

????Why? Because a start-up is so fluid, roles changes, responsibilities evolve and reporting structures move around fluidly. Titles represent friction, pure and simple, and the one thing you want to reduce in a start-up is friction. By avoiding titles, you avoid early employees getting fixated on their role, who they report to, and what their scope of responsibility is - all things that rapidly change in a company's first year or two.

????For example, one of my first bosses in the company later became a peer, and then later still reported to me. Our headcount went from 0 to 200 in two years. Our revenue grew from 0 to $60m in 3 years. We went public only two years after the company was founded. We were moving way too fast to get slowed down by titles and rigid hierarchies. Over the course of my five-year tenure, I ran a range of departments -- product management, marketing, business development, professional services -- all amidst a very fluid environment. Around the time that we went public, we matured in such a way that we began to settle into a more stable organizational structure and, yes, had formal titles. But during those formative first few years, avoiding titles provided a more nimble organization.

????So when I co-founded Upromise, I instituted a similar policy. We had an open office structure and functional teams, but a fluid organizational environment and rapid growth. One of our young team members changed jobs four times in her first year. Only after the first year, as we settled into a more stable organizational structure and I recruited senior executives who were more obviously going to serve as my direct reports on the executive team did I begin to give out titles (CTO, CMO, CFO, etc.). With the title policy, there was some early tension and discomfort (one young MBA kept referring to himself as a VP externally, although he was clearly playing an individual contributor role and was soon layered). Often, when you are running your start-up experiments, you are not even sure of the right profile for employees or organization structure for optimal execution. But you can establish role and process clarity without having to depend on titles.

????I haven't been able to institute this systematically in our portfolio, but whenever young start-ups are formed, it's one of the first things I counsel the founder. Don't let your founding team and early hires get too attached to titles and hieararchy. In fact, in that formative first year, see if you can avoid them altogether.

????Jeffrey Bussgang is general partner at venture capital firm Flybridge Capital Partners. You can follow him on Twitter @bussgang