3 ms·
The 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
by deanCommie 5y ago
The 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.