4 ms·

The fact is that often the lead developer who builds the first version of a product does not have the skills and experience to be the CTO as the company grows.

by kyllo 13y ago

The fact is that often the lead developer who builds the first version of a product does not have the skills and experience to be the CTO as the company grows. Ok, I admit I've never even worked at a startup, so perhaps I'm missing something, but this idea just smells fishy. Why on earth would the lead developer who built a software product from the ground up, possibly single-handedly, not have the "skills and experience" to continue running that codebase as the company grows? Like someone with experience "at scale" and better connections is going to come in later, read/understand all the code the technical co-founder wrote (or perhaps just hire a team to rewrite everything from scratch using a more "scalable" software stack), and take over as CTO, relegating the co-founder to a subordinate role? Has that ever worked?

michaelochurch 13y ago
I think that his argument is that, as the job of CTO becomes more of a management/connections role, it's better to have someone else in it. I actually agree. The right people to build a business are often not the right people to maintain it at maturity. I'd want the title of "CTO" if building someone's product, but I would agree to abdicate it if I agreed with the choice of successor, and was genuinely convinced he'd do a better job than I could. I just wouldn't be happy not to have a say in it. I want to be able to say, "if you hire him above me, then I leave and you just had a CTO quit". Titles make it hard to demote or fire someone because if they punt you, they just "fired their CTO". You want a title because when millions (and potentially billions) are on the line you can't trust people in power, even if you think you've known them for years.
- kyllo 13y ago
  Right, the key distinction being that in your scenario, the title change is entirely voluntary, and even beneficial from the perspective of the technical co-founder, because he wants to continue working on the codebase rather than having his time taken up by all the politician duties that C*O roles entail. I think in the OP, it seemed like more of a "you shouldn't let your first developer be the CTO because you want to be able to hire someone more experienced above him when your startup gets big enough to attract real rockstar talent" type of angle. Which, as you pointed out, is repulsive.
  - patrickmay 13y ago
    "Repulsive" needs some logical support. If your first developer lacks the necessary skills, it doesn't make sense to put the company at risk by setting him or her up for failure.
    - eropple 13y ago
      Hire a better first developer. If you go in to screw the guy working for you (and by my lights, what you describe is screwing), you invite bad karma.
patrickmay 13y ago
I agree with what Michael said and would add that the CTO role encompasses far more than just development. A good CTO needs to understand product management, business development, and sales. He or she has to be able to present to customers, partners, investors, and the board. Managing a growing team is also part of the role, as is balancing business and technical demands. It's possible that your PHP hacker co-founder can do all that, but your VCs just might know someone more qualified.

by kyllo 13y ago

michaelochurch 13y ago

I think that his argument is that, as the job of CTO becomes more of a management/connections role, it's better to have someone else in it. I actually agree. The right people to build a business are often not the right people to maintain it at maturity. I'd want the title of "CTO" if building someone's product, but I would agree to abdicate it if I agreed with the choice of successor, and was genuinely convinced he'd do a better job than I could. I just wouldn't be happy not to have a say in it. I want to be able to say, "if you hire him above me, then I leave and you just had a CTO quit". Titles make it hard to demote or fire someone because if they punt you, they just "fired their CTO". You want a title because when millions (and potentially billions) are on the line you can't trust people in power, even if you think you've known them for years.

kyllo 13y ago
Right, the key distinction being that in your scenario, the title change is entirely voluntary, and even beneficial from the perspective of the technical co-founder, because he wants to continue working on the codebase rather than having his time taken up by all the politician duties that C*O roles entail. I think in the OP, it seemed like more of a "you shouldn't let your first developer be the CTO because you want to be able to hire someone more experienced above him when your startup gets big enough to attract real rockstar talent" type of angle. Which, as you pointed out, is repulsive.
- patrickmay 13y ago
  "Repulsive" needs some logical support. If your first developer lacks the necessary skills, it doesn't make sense to put the company at risk by setting him or her up for failure.
  - eropple 13y ago
    Hire a better first developer. If you go in to screw the guy working for you (and by my lights, what you describe is screwing), you invite bad karma.

patrickmay 13y ago

I agree with what Michael said and would add that the CTO role encompasses far more than just development. A good CTO needs to understand product management, business development, and sales. He or she has to be able to present to customers, partners, investors, and the board. Managing a growing team is also part of the role, as is balancing business and technical demands. It's possible that your PHP hacker co-founder can do all that, but your VCs just might know someone more qualified.