# CEO vs General Manager



## expectnomercy

Hi,

I don't know if it's appropriate to post a question like this here, but I'll take my chances 

What is the difference between these two words? _<< --- *CEO vs General Manager* --- >>_

Which of the two denotes the actual owner of a company and which of them stands for someone who got hired to run it?

T*ha*n*ks*!


----------



## JustKate

Both of these titles exist independently of ownership. The owner could be the general manager or the CEO, but those could be someone else entirely.


----------



## Copyright

You might like to look at the various responses on a Google search for ceo vs managing director.


----------



## expectnomercy

* JustKate*

I'm afraid I don't quite follow you. Could you be a little bit more specific?
*
Copyright*

OK, let me put it this way: which of the two would you use for someone in charge of a relatively small company? Let's say, this individual founded it and is responsible for running it on a day to day basis. He's not answerable to anybody but himself and is at liberty to disband it whenever he feels like it...


----------



## JustKate

What I'm saying is that while a CEO can be the owner, there is no rule that says he has to be, and while the general manager can be the owner, there is no rule that says she has to be, either. The owner can have any title he or she wants, but in addition, these titles can be held by people who aren't owners.

If you need to say that someone founded the company, still owns the company and runs the company, one title won't say everything you need to say. You need to say "owner and _____" or "founder and _____." There are a number of possible titles that can be used to fill in those blanks, and you've listed two of them.


----------



## expectnomercy

*JustKate*

What if my choice is limited to these two words?


----------



## JustKate

They are both fine. Really. But neither one will even hint that the person you're talking about is also the owner and/or founder unless you say so.


----------



## Mahantongo

If you are limitd to these two terms  you have a problem, because there is nothing in either title that suggests the person is the owner of the company.  In fact, in more cases than not with large companies, a CEO or a general manager is NOT the owner, but is instead an employee of a corporation that is owned by the stockholders.


----------



## Myridon

CEO stands for Chief Executive Officer. There must be other executive officers that he is the chief of such as presidents, vice presidents, etc. A company with a CEO usually has other "C-level" officers such as a Chief Financial Officer, a Chief Operating Officer, ....  A company with a CEO is probably rather large.


----------



## expectnomercy

How about introducing yourself in an email? Suppose, I have to let the intended recipient know about my company and then use either General Manager or CEO at the end of it as a title.


----------



## Myridon

If you are in a company, the company has established the titles of the employees.  You won't have to worry about what to call yourself.


----------



## expectnomercy

*Myridon*

Would I be asking for help if things were that simple?


----------



## Andygc

If would be easier to help you if you explained your problem. Perhaps a complete sentence with context and background? Chief Executive Officer and General Manager are not synonyms.


----------



## Mahantongo

Why is it not that simple?  I agree with Andy -- an explanation of your position, and what you want to say about it, would be very helpful.


----------



## Parla

> How about introducing yourself in an email? Suppose, I have to let the  intended recipient know about my company and then use either General  Manager or CEO at the end of it as a title.


If you are the owner: Use whatever title you have given yourself.
If you are not the owner: Use whatever title your employer has given you.

Your title should be established before you begin sending e-mails on the company's behalf.


----------



## expectnomercy

*Mahantongo  

Andygc* 

 I think I've supplied a wealth of information in my previous posts:  



> Which of the two would you use for someone in charge of a relatively small company? Let's say, this individual founded it and is responsible for running it on a day to day basis. He's not answerable to anybody but himself and is at liberty to disband it whenever he feels like it
> 
> What if my choice is limited to these two words?
> 
> How about introducing yourself in an email? Suppose, I have to let the intended recipient know about my company and then use either General Manager or CEO at the end of it as a title.



Well, if it's not enougn, let's go over it again:  

1) I'm supposed to write an email to, let's just say, a potential partner. 
 2) In it, I have to provide some information on who I am (my position) and what company I am in charge of 
3) At the very end of it, I should state my name and title again.  

So, what should I call myself - CEO or General Manager?


----------



## Florentia52

Parla gave you some excellent advice. If you own the business, you have determined your own title, or you can decide now what you want it to be, and that's what you should use. If you do not own the business, you should use whatever title the owner of the business has given you.


----------



## JulianStuart

Don't forget the possibility of Managing Director.  There is a bit of difference in usage between US and UK, so your email recipient might expect one or the other.  You are the founder/owner/proprietor/President/CEO/GM/MD and your role can be explained in the body of the email. After that explanation, it will not matter what title you give yourself.  Some of this is discussed in another thread (and it contains a link to further details).  What everyone is saying is you simply choose for yourself  If you are _not_ responsible to a board of directors and there are no other shareholders, you could use "Owner and X" where X is any of the above.


----------



## expectnomercy

*JulianStuart*

*Florentia52*

So, what it all boils down to is that I can be either CEO or General Manager as long as I am the one who calls the shots, right? And no eyebrows will be raised even if it's a really small company where 2 or 3 people are employed (except myself)?


----------



## Andygc

If it's your company you can call yourself what you like. You can be CEO, Chief Executive, General Manager, Managing Director, Proprietor, Sole Proprietor - it's entirely up to you to choose. There's no reason for eyebrows to be raised, although CEO seems somewhat pretentious for a company employing 2 or 3 people.

You still haven't explained why you wrote 





expectnomercy said:


> What if my choice is limited to these two words?


that is, why is your choice limited?


----------



## Pilotboy1

Here's a chain of command if that may explain things easier.

* CEO
                                                                                           General Manager
*                                                                    Employee​
The *CEO* own's the entire business.
The *General Manager* works for the CEO and runs a branch of the business.
The Employee's work for the General Manager who, in turn, works for the CEO.      

However if you own a small business you might find yourself being the CEO and General Manager.
Hope that helps explain clearly.


----------



## expectnomercy

*Andygc*

Because I'm not the owner and the one who is can't make up his mind about which of the two to use 

*Pilotboy1*

That sounds more like it  It was my initial guess that CEO owns the entire business whereas General Manager only runs a branch of the business. But since everybody here kept saying that there's no difference I decided not to mention that. Thanks!!!


----------



## sdgraham

Pilotboy1 said:


> Here's a chain of command if that may explain things easier.
> 
> The *CEO* own's the entire business.
> The *General Manager* works for the CEO and runs a branch of the business.
> The Employee's work for the General Manager who, in turn, works for the CEO.
> 
> However if you own a small business you might find yourself being the CEO and General Manager.
> Hope that helps explain clearly.



This is not accurate, including the grammatical errors of using an apostrophe in "employees" and "owns."

Corporations have chief executive officers who certainly do not own the business.

The CEO of Microsoft certainly does not own the business. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satya_Nadella

Sorry.


----------



## Pilotboy1

sdgraham said:


> This is not accurate, including the grammatical errors of using an apostrophe in "employees" and "owns."
> 
> Corporations have chief executive officers who certainly do not own the business.
> 
> The CEO of Microsoft certainly does not own the business. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satya_Nadella
> 
> Sorry.



What I meant by it, is that CEO's _generally_ own the company. However, as always, there are exceptions. =)


----------



## JustKate

SDG is right. The terms have vague meanings associated with them, but they are nothing like as clear-cut as Pilotboy1 seems to think. Often the CEO outranks the general manager, but not always (many companies have only one or the other, not both), and CEOs very often don't own the company. That's not what CEO means.

It's as we keep telling you, expectnomercy: None - not one - of these titles means "owner" - not CEO, not general manager, not managing director, none of them. If you need people to know that you're the owner or the founder, you have to *say* so. 

Tell me, what is the problem with just having two titles under your name, e.g., "Owner and CEO"? I don't get it. It's perfectly acceptable, and it solves the problem, so why resist this obvious solution?



			
				Pilotboy1 said:
			
		

> What I meant by it, is that CEO's generally own the company. However, as always, there are exceptions. =)



I'm sorry, but this is wrong. It's more common for a CEO to not be the company owner than for him to be the company owner. Having the CEO as the owner is "the exception," not the other way around.


----------



## sdgraham

Pilotboy1 said:


> What I meant by it, is that CEO's _generally_ own the company. However, as always, there are exceptions. =)


You will benefit by reviewing the Wikipedia article, especially the part that points out that the CEO is appointed by the board of directors. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_executive_officer


----------



## Andygc

expectnomercy said:


> *Andygc*
> 
> Because I'm not the owner and the one who is can't make up his mind about which of the two to use
> 
> *Pilotboy1*
> 
> That sounds more like it  It was my initial guess that CEO owns the entire business whereas General Manager only runs a branch of the business. But since everybody here kept saying that there's no difference I decided not to mention that. Thanks!!!


Why do you give us relevant pieces of information one by one? Earlier you wrote  





expectnomercy said:


> So, what it all boils down to is that I can be either CEO or General Manager as long as I am the one who calls the shots, right? And no eyebrows will be raised even if it's a really small company where 2 or 3 people are employed (except myself)?


Not surprisingly, there are several posts which assume that you are the proprietor. Now you write 





expectnomercy said:


> Because I'm not the owner and the one who is can't make up his mind about which of the two to use


 I can also point out that in post #13 I wrote





> Chief Executive Officer and General Manager are not synonyms.


Also, as sdgraham wrote, the CEO of a business is rarely the owner.


----------



## sdgraham

If you're not the owner and you supervise 2-3 others, "manager" is appropriate, and is used in such enterprises as the local McDonald's, which'has even more employees.

If you're intent upon some grandiose title and have no shame, the sky's the limit.


----------



## expectnomercy

> The CEO of Microsoft certainly does not own the business



Who does then? Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates

It says there in black and white: _Gates stepped down *as chief executive officer* of Microsoft in January 2000_



> Why do you give us relevant pieces of information one by one?



Please, note that every time I refer to a fictional situation by using either 'let's say', or 'let's just say' or 'suppose'.


----------



## Andygc

What point are you trying to make? "The CEO of Microsoft does not own the business" is correct. JustKate wrote "Having the CEO as the owner is the exception, not the other way around." Bill Gates was, until January 2000, one of the exceptions.

PS. Edit - that is, assuming he was still the majority shareholder then (cross-posted with sdgraham).


----------



## sdgraham

expectnomercy said:


> Who does then? Check this out:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates
> 
> It says there in black and white: _Gates stepped down *as chief executive officer* of Microsoft in January 2000_



Correct, but irrelevant.

Bill Gates does not own Microsoft. Microsoft is a public company owned by thousands of shareholders, including myself, and overall control is vested in a board of directors.

This article will show you that Gates is not even the majority stockholder these days.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danalex...ow-owns-less-of-microsoft-than-steve-ballmer/

You might brush up on the concept of publicly owned companies in the West.


----------



## Myridon

Bill Gates and Paul Allen founded Microsoft in 1975. Originally, he owned some part of the company. At some point they probable switched to an internal share system of some sort. The company became a public corporation in 1986.  From that point on, he was only a shareholder.  He did not "own" the company.


----------



## expectnomercy

*Andygc*
_
What point are you trying to make?_

None whatsoever. I just did some googling and that's what I came up with.

*sdgraham*

_Bill Gates does not own Microsoft_

But he did until January 2000 (just as *Andygc* pointed out)?


----------



## JustKate

expectnomercy said:


> *Andygc*
> _
> What point are you trying to make?_
> 
> None whatsoever. I just did some googling and that's what I came up with.
> 
> *sdgraham*
> 
> _Bill Gates does not own Microsoft_
> 
> But he did until January 2000 (just as *Andygc* pointed out)?



Even  if this were so (and I don't think, as Myridon has pointed out, he's truly been "the" owner for a very long time), that doesn't matter. A person can be the CEO and the owner - why not? He can also be the head of public relations and the head of the cleaning crew. He can be anything he wants in addition to being the owner.

The point is that the title CEO does not mean "someone who is the owner."


----------



## sdgraham

expectnomercy said:


> Andygc[/B] pointed out)?



No, he did *not*. See Myridon's post #32, which is spot-on.


----------



## Mahantongo

expectnomercy said:


> Please, note that every time I refer to a fictional situation by using either 'let's say', or 'let's just say' or 'suppose'.



Well, then, let's just say you stop wasting everyone's time with fictional situations, and actually give us the details of the *real* situation.  Wouldn't that make a great deal more sense?


----------



## Andygc

Mahantongo said:


> Well, then, let's just say you stop wasting everyone's time with fictional situations, and actually give us the details of the *real* situation.  Wouldn't that make a great deal more sense?


Indeed.


----------



## expectnomercy

*JustKate

*OK, I see your point: neither CEO nor General Manager can be the owner of a company. But if we are talking about chain of command - which of the two has the most authority? See, I came across this:

_A General Manager is a position of major responsibility in a company, such as having executive control of a major division. A company has one CEO, but many General managers._

Is that correct?

*sdgraham*

I stand corrected.

*Mahantongo*



> Well, then, let's just say you stop wasting everyone's time with fictional situations, and actually give us the details of the real situation. Wouldn't that make a great deal more sense?



I'm not wasting anybody's time and I'm sorry if my posts made you feel that way...


----------



## JustKate

Probably CEO, but not always. And let me point out once more that some companies have one and not the other, so there isn't really a clear difference between the two when it comes to hierarchy. I personally think "CEO" sounds a little grandiose for a smaller firm. Also, as Julian points out in post #18, usage varies a bit from AmE to BE, so if you're writing to BE speakers, CEO may not be your best choice. 

And none of them say "owner."


----------



## expectnomercy

*JustKate*

OK, thanks. That's all I need to know.

Thanks to everybody for their input.


----------



## Parla

> What I meant by it, is that CEO's _generally_ own the company.


Why you are so reluctant to accept facts from people who know them is very puzzling.

Like Mr. Graham, I'm one of the owners of Microsoft. No one has ever asked me (or, I presume, Mr. Graham) to be the CEO.


----------

