3 ms·
A 40 person Eng. Org. is not going to be led by one person with a bunch of direct reports. IT and Eng. roles will probably be sub divided. Instead of a VP it
by jollybean 5y ago
A 40 person Eng. Org. is not going to be led by one person with a bunch of direct reports.
IT and Eng. roles will probably be sub divided.
Instead of a VP it might be possible to have just a manager or director, but it depends on the seniority of the people you're bringing in.
The CTO's job is not just downward focus, they have strategic things to to.
A few titles could be mushed around but it's just about right.
For the VP product with only 11 reports - that's a staff position, it doesn't have to imply a lot of headcount.
You might have a Colonel in charge of an entire Regiment of Soldiers, but another Colonel in charge of a much smaller detachment of Medics, or Intel, Communications, or even just a Chief of Staff etc..
Aside from handing out VP roles to possibly people that are too young or inexperienced, the 'tree' itself is just about right.
- deanCommie 5y agoThe problem is the tree is imbalanced. The CTO has an org of 40, with 1 VP report, 3 director reports, and 2 IC's. The VP has 28 - the vast majority of the org. This role is redundant at this size, and wasteful. Just have one technical leader who maanged SIX directors (and 4 IC's, and it is still a reasonable size team. What is the VP of Eng providing here that the CTO can't do? BTW, arguably this is still true at the Series C 400-sized company. The technical org is 114, but the VP of Eng managed 92 of them.
- objektif 5y agoI think the mistake you are doing is that these are primarily titles. It does not 100% correspond to what they actually do particularly at C level. If you are a CTO of a startup you frigging do everything for a long time. You want people to fully focus on the daily challenges of technical projects. You can call them VP of eng of whatever you want.