4 ms·

> Unfortunately, there's no real place in the world for a highly technical business leader. While I certainly see evidence of this in the workplace, I also see

> Unfortunately, there's no real place in the world for a highly technical business leader. While I certainly see evidence of this in the workplace, I also see that this kind of leader would be exceptionally valuable to any organization. Do you find that the issue here is that companies already at scale have separated concerns so highly that the management skills are more valued (so technical leaders go to startups / smaller places) or is this really just because us technical people like to build things more than manage things? This is super interesting input - I think that on this answer, depends a lot of the future of companies, but also where technical folks can and should target. (Although you mention CEO which, I mean, that's a leadership role too hehe)

DelaneyM 10y ago
> While I certainly see evidence of this in the workplace, I also see that this kind of leader would be exceptionally valuable to any organization. You'd think!! I have a few theories as to why this is so: The most charitable interpretation is that, since technically competent business leaders are so incredibly rare (set aside that every engineer thinks they can do it), there's no design pattern for that leader. Ownership is ritually divided into COO/CTO/CFO, and of those CTO is linearly defined. Technical leaders are excluded from non-technical discussions by default, and norms are extremely hard to break. ^ This is why I recommend against great Engineers doing an MBA. There's just no role at Amazon/Google/etc. for that profile beneath the VP level, reporting trees for engineers/business branch at the second tier and never meet thereafter. A different perspective is that in a sufficiently technical organization (ie: everyone, these days), technology is a giant black box to the rest of the leadership team. It's a big part of the budget and a massive component of success, yet completely opaque and unfamiliar to someone who rose up through sales/marketing/etc. In their minds, the CTO already has an outsize impact, and surrendering to them more scope is scary.
- sailfast 10y ago
  Thanks - this is really interesting and thought provoking feedback.
- tamana 10y ago
  Why would a techie want a MBA job below VP level? Most don't want to be advertising account managers or business analysts either. Does that matter?
  - DelaneyM 10y ago
    tl;dr: If there's no reason to get an MBA as a promotion-track engineer, then not only will none of your promoted engineers will have MBAs, none of your promoted MBAs will have practical experience being a great engineer. They wouldn't, of course. And that's really the problem. If you don't have mid-level technical managers with MBAs, you don't get to promote/hire VP-level technical MBAs. An MBA does teach a lot of valuable skills. As many smart technical founders/leaders have crashed up against the corporate rocks of running a major division/initiative as business leaders failed due to distance from execution. Right now though there's no role, and no opportunity, for a mid-tier (post-MBA) capital-E engineer. So there will be no MBA-toting, engineering-aware VPs. Without business-fluent engineers (or engineering-fluent business folks) companies are deprived of interdisciplinary innovation. You get financial programs which ignore technical needs, and great inventions which don't have a market. Promotion which doesn't represent reality and deals which can't be executed. Most of the frustration engineers have with business people is not that business folks can't do business well, but that they don't do so understanding the underlying technology. And until there's a reason to want a techie MBA (or business-y Eng) at a sub-VP level, this isn't going to get better.
    - mxuribe 10y ago
      +1!
    - nekopa 10y ago
      So why don't we, as an industry, talk to the Universities, and say that we really need a new program, let's say a TechMBA? (Or for marketing purposes, call it a TeMBA - that really rolls off the tongue :) I'd think that there would be some interest around this from the universities, and business is really crying out for this too. From the Uni viewpoint, it is another product they can leverage, whilst still using there in house competencies and also creating cross university synergies (HBS-MIT TeMBA) For businesses, they get exactly the top management they need - even for non-tech companies - a CIO/CTO with solid tech skills and business skills is a sure winner. P.S. Please forgive me for slipping in the word synergy. I truly believe it's a great word, with a great meaning, but has been flogged to death by the consulting industry. {Edit} Actually, I like the idea of a TeMBA, I am going to start a AskHN: What would the syllabus be for a TeMBA? {Edit 2} Here's the link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11894955 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11894955
- mxuribe 10y ago
  +1!
- rorykoehler 10y ago
  I always viewed tech as a tool to improve the other aspects of the organisation. What are you doing with tech if you are not improving either operations, marketing or finance?
  - DelaneyM 10y ago
    It could also be your product.
    - OpenDrapery 10y ago
      I think the difference between line of business software and companies that are actual software companies is so huge that it starts to make no sense to compare them. I've worked on technology that goes out the door and contributes to the company's revenue stream, and I'd have been insulted if someone said I was in "IT". The cultural differences between that and truly working in the IT cost center is massive. Most people who spend the careers working for banks and insurance companies never see the other side of the chasm.
    - rorykoehler 10y ago
      In which case it's just one step removed. All products I have ever come across fix a pain point in one or more of the areas mentioned.
jwatte 10y ago
My take is that, at certain scale, the biggest problem is getting all the people to pull in the same direction. Technical leadership can define /how/ to pull, which can have a 10x multiplier if correctly implemented in the organization, but that implementation is a number of battles with messy human wills, which require psychology, not technology. As a CTO you may be able to hire directors who are good people pushers, to delegate most of that, or even perhaps a VP Eng if your company is big enough.

DelaneyM 10y ago

> While I certainly see evidence of this in the workplace, I also see that this kind of leader would be exceptionally valuable to any organization. You'd think!! I have a few theories as to why this is so: The most charitable interpretation is that, since technically competent business leaders are so incredibly rare (set aside that every engineer thinks they can do it), there's no design pattern for that leader. Ownership is ritually divided into COO/CTO/CFO, and of those CTO is linearly defined. Technical leaders are excluded from non-technical discussions by default, and norms are extremely hard to break. ^ This is why I recommend against great Engineers doing an MBA. There's just no role at Amazon/Google/etc. for that profile beneath the VP level, reporting trees for engineers/business branch at the second tier and never meet thereafter. A different perspective is that in a sufficiently technical organization (ie: everyone, these days), technology is a giant black box to the rest of the leadership team. It's a big part of the budget and a massive component of success, yet completely opaque and unfamiliar to someone who rose up through sales/marketing/etc. In their minds, the CTO already has an outsize impact, and surrendering to them more scope is scary.

sailfast 10y ago
Thanks - this is really interesting and thought provoking feedback.
tamana 10y ago
Why would a techie want a MBA job below VP level? Most don't want to be advertising account managers or business analysts either. Does that matter?
- DelaneyM 10y ago
  tl;dr: If there's no reason to get an MBA as a promotion-track engineer, then not only will none of your promoted engineers will have MBAs, none of your promoted MBAs will have practical experience being a great engineer. They wouldn't, of course. And that's really the problem. If you don't have mid-level technical managers with MBAs, you don't get to promote/hire VP-level technical MBAs. An MBA does teach a lot of valuable skills. As many smart technical founders/leaders have crashed up against the corporate rocks of running a major division/initiative as business leaders failed due to distance from execution. Right now though there's no role, and no opportunity, for a mid-tier (post-MBA) capital-E engineer. So there will be no MBA-toting, engineering-aware VPs. Without business-fluent engineers (or engineering-fluent business folks) companies are deprived of interdisciplinary innovation. You get financial programs which ignore technical needs, and great inventions which don't have a market. Promotion which doesn't represent reality and deals which can't be executed. Most of the frustration engineers have with business people is not that business folks can't do business well, but that they don't do so understanding the underlying technology. And until there's a reason to want a techie MBA (or business-y Eng) at a sub-VP level, this isn't going to get better.
  - mxuribe 10y ago
    +1!
  - nekopa 10y ago
    So why don't we, as an industry, talk to the Universities, and say that we really need a new program, let's say a TechMBA? (Or for marketing purposes, call it a TeMBA - that really rolls off the tongue :) I'd think that there would be some interest around this from the universities, and business is really crying out for this too. From the Uni viewpoint, it is another product they can leverage, whilst still using there in house competencies and also creating cross university synergies (HBS-MIT TeMBA) For businesses, they get exactly the top management they need - even for non-tech companies - a CIO/CTO with solid tech skills and business skills is a sure winner. P.S. Please forgive me for slipping in the word synergy. I truly believe it's a great word, with a great meaning, but has been flogged to death by the consulting industry. {Edit} Actually, I like the idea of a TeMBA, I am going to start a AskHN: What would the syllabus be for a TeMBA? {Edit 2} Here's the link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11894955 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11894955
mxuribe 10y ago
+1!
rorykoehler 10y ago
I always viewed tech as a tool to improve the other aspects of the organisation. What are you doing with tech if you are not improving either operations, marketing or finance?
- DelaneyM 10y ago
  It could also be your product.
  - OpenDrapery 10y ago
    I think the difference between line of business software and companies that are actual software companies is so huge that it starts to make no sense to compare them. I've worked on technology that goes out the door and contributes to the company's revenue stream, and I'd have been insulted if someone said I was in "IT". The cultural differences between that and truly working in the IT cost center is massive. Most people who spend the careers working for banks and insurance companies never see the other side of the chasm.
  - rorykoehler 10y ago
    In which case it's just one step removed. All products I have ever come across fix a pain point in one or more of the areas mentioned.

jwatte 10y ago

My take is that, at certain scale, the biggest problem is getting all the people to pull in the same direction. Technical leadership can define /how/ to pull, which can have a 10x multiplier if correctly implemented in the organization, but that implementation is a number of battles with messy human wills, which require psychology, not technology. As a CTO you may be able to hire directors who are good people pushers, to delegate most of that, or even perhaps a VP Eng if your company is big enough.