3 ms·
> The mid/senior leadership of the best known companies hires all thr available techie MBAs. This is false, and also misses the point. I went through two recr
by DelaneyM 10y ago
> The mid/senior leadership of the best known companies hires all thr available techie MBAs.
This is false, and also misses the point.
I went through two recruiting cycles at HBS (Harvard Business School), which is one of the largest (~1000/yr) and most representative business schools. I did not see a single position advertised which required actual engineering experience. I was also one of three people (in 1000) who had a job before school which required writing code.
There were plenty of companies which would have loved to hire a solid engineer, but the job they'd be hired into would neither require nor use those skills. I could certainly go work in Product Management at Google, for instance; but why would I want to? My better path to VP at Google would be as a coder (if I wanted to be a VP at Google).
> There are few CTOs because a 50K employee company only has 1 CTO. Others are CEO, COO, CIO.
There is 1 CTO in the HBS alumni database. There are more than 36,000 CEOs. CEO-CTO is probably ~2:1 in the real world.
ps: data mining the HBS Alumni database is fascinating, btw!
- mxuribe 10y ago+1!
- vasilipupkin 10y agoStrongly doubting the assertion that it is easier to become a Google VP as a coder than a product manager. Product managers are responsible for the product and its P&L which is much more suited as training ground for VP than being a coder, in my opinion
- DelaneyM 10y agoA better 1:1 comparison is PM vs lead Engineer. They're at similar levels in the hierarchy. There are idiosyncratic and systematic ways to consider this statement. My personal belief is that it would be an easier path because I know myself to be very good at building products and supporting engineers, and relatively less interested in market research & networking. In a more general sense, it's pretty easy to get a rough count of the number of product-oriented VPs at Google on LinkedIn, then count how many have PM backgrounds and how many came up through engineering (divided by the ratio of PMs to engineering managers). I did that analysis two years ago when I was considering Google, and it came up strongly on the side of engineer. I'd be particularly interested to know if this has changed since, or if internal/better data suggests otherwise!
- eitally 10y agoI suggest that once you get to the senior manager level on both tracks they generally start to merge as both become less focused on technical minutiae and more focused on product planning and execution. Eng directors [outside of pure research areas] have to be as market/business savvy as PM directors, for sure.
- DelaneyM 10y agoThat's very likely true, but it doesn't say much about the relative access each has to a VP office.
- vasilipupkin 10y agoYou are saying Google has a lot of VPs without MBA and no product leadership experience, without any prior experience of having P&L responsibility, strictly engineering experience? Perhaps, but I am skeptical. I'd like to see the data on that.
- DelaneyM 10y agoIf you restrict it to product VPs, it was true as recently as 2014. The set of Google VPs has a representative sample on LinkedIn. Prove me wrong.
- vasilipupkin 10y agoAll the VPs who came through engineering that I found did so after having been early employees at one of the top tech companies. I buy that. But if you are going to climb the ladder now, I doubt you can do it through engineering at Google
- h1srf 10y agoI don't think HBS would be the best dataset to use though: 1. The CTO position probably didn't exist until the 90s so you'd need to restrict your dataset to something more recent 2. HBS doesn't generally attract tech people. All of the people that I know that went to HBS(~20) work in finance/consulting/non-profit. Some came from a tech background. Stanford may be a better choice. That was the vibe I got when I attended MBA info sessions at HBS and Stanford. Columbia had sort of a mix.