5 ms·

True but it really depends on how important the technical aspect (at least in the coding sense) is in relation to what the others are doing (or are capable of d

by grellas 17y ago

True but it really depends on how important the technical aspect (at least in the coding sense) is in relation to what the others are doing (or are capable of doing). For example, I have a client today whose founders are guys having ultra-strong backgrounds in devising enterprise solutions, with major high-level contacts in the relevant market and reasonable prospects of parlaying all this into what eventually may become a $1B+ company. A "technical employee" could reasonably be thought of as "first employee," as opposed to "founder," in this type of case and could make a rational decision to take a whirl with equity instead of salary. It all depends on the nature of the opportunity and the credibility of the founders (I don't deny, though, that there can be a high risk of taking a sucker-bet in routine cases where equity-only offers of this type are made).

hga 17y ago
Yeah ... but their "ultra-strong backgrounds" and "major high-level contacts" aren't worth jack if the company's product(s) don't work. (Well, they still might make some money off of them before they get caught out, but that sort of fraud, inadvertent as it might be, is not something you want to be associated with.) The "technical employee" is a necessary (but not sufficient) part of their potential success, and getting the technology right is a lot harder than non-techies realize. The biggest problem here, especially today, is that there are so many hungry people on the streets looking for work that your negotiating position isn't strong. On the other hand, if these non-techie founders truly are savvy they'll know there's not exactly a surplus of really good people to choose from.... My bottom line is that when non-technical founders devalue technical employees they also tend to devalue all the technical things that are needed to make the venture successful, and that that's a very bad environment in which to work.
- grellas 17y ago
  In the case I mention, the lead founder was CTO of a multi-B company for over a decade (indeed, had been a key player in helping build it to that level) - he is technically savvy but just not doing that aspect of the work (at least at the detail level) in this company as he drives it. I don't think it is an issue of devaluing technical people (at least in honest situations) but just a matter of weighing relative contributions for a particular venture. Technical is not always foremost in what distinguishes a particular business model for success.
  - hga 17y ago
    "Technical is not always foremost in what distinguishes a particular business model for success." Indeed, and if you're a disciple of Clayton The Innovator's Dilemma Christensen the technology itself often isn't what's so innovative as the use to which you put it. But it still has to work ^_^. At least in this case we can have serious confidence that the once and future CTO will make sure it does.
mattmanser 17y ago
Bollocks. No enterprise solution is worth $1B+ on the strength of 'major high-level contacts'. It's all about the actual work put in and a massive dose of luck.
- gruseom 17y ago
  First of all, please don't be uncivil in this way. Second, grellas didn't say this company was worth $1B. He said that based on the founders' track record there was a "reasonable prospect" of it. "Reasonable" here presumably means in the judgment of experienced observers. Like who? Maybe like grellas, who has been a startup lawyer for decades and consistently posts some of the most informed comments on this subject. The point he was making is nuanced, and the example was obviously chosen to illustrate that.

by grellas 17y ago

hga 17y ago

Yeah ... but their "ultra-strong backgrounds" and "major high-level contacts" aren't worth jack if the company's product(s) don't work. (Well, they still might make some money off of them before they get caught out, but that sort of fraud, inadvertent as it might be, is not something you want to be associated with.) The "technical employee" is a necessary (but not sufficient) part of their potential success, and getting the technology right is a lot harder than non-techies realize. The biggest problem here, especially today, is that there are so many hungry people on the streets looking for work that your negotiating position isn't strong. On the other hand, if these non-techie founders truly are savvy they'll know there's not exactly a surplus of really good people to choose from.... My bottom line is that when non-technical founders devalue technical employees they also tend to devalue all the technical things that are needed to make the venture successful, and that that's a very bad environment in which to work.

grellas 17y ago
In the case I mention, the lead founder was CTO of a multi-B company for over a decade (indeed, had been a key player in helping build it to that level) - he is technically savvy but just not doing that aspect of the work (at least at the detail level) in this company as he drives it. I don't think it is an issue of devaluing technical people (at least in honest situations) but just a matter of weighing relative contributions for a particular venture. Technical is not always foremost in what distinguishes a particular business model for success.
- hga 17y ago
  "Technical is not always foremost in what distinguishes a particular business model for success." Indeed, and if you're a disciple of Clayton The Innovator's Dilemma Christensen the technology itself often isn't what's so innovative as the use to which you put it. But it still has to work ^_^. At least in this case we can have serious confidence that the once and future CTO will make sure it does.

mattmanser 17y ago

Bollocks. No enterprise solution is worth $1B+ on the strength of 'major high-level contacts'. It's all about the actual work put in and a massive dose of luck.

gruseom 17y ago
First of all, please don't be uncivil in this way. Second, grellas didn't say this company was worth $1B. He said that based on the founders' track record there was a "reasonable prospect" of it. "Reasonable" here presumably means in the judgment of experienced observers. Like who? Maybe like grellas, who has been a startup lawyer for decades and consistently posts some of the most informed comments on this subject. The point he was making is nuanced, and the example was obviously chosen to illustrate that.