3 ms·
With respect, I think you're deluding yourself a bit. The way you've described things, what you've done is hired a VP of Engineering to do most of your old job.
by staunch 12y ago
With respect, I think you're deluding yourself a bit. The way you've described things, what you've done is hired a VP of Engineering to do most of your old job. It's a big change and you risk creating for yourself a (very boring) Chairman of Technology role if you're not careful.
- gdb 12y agoFor sure, with any change comes risk, but at a rapidly growing company there's even bigger risk with lack of change. (http://randsinrepose.com/archives/the-old-guard/ http://randsinrepose.com/archives/the-old-guard/ has some good perspective on this, I think.) In any case, of things that keep me up at night, falling into a boring role is definitely not one of them :).
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- staunch 12y agoIt sounds like a good environment and you're thinking about the right issues. It will probably work out well. Good luck!
- sanderjd 12y agoThis is an interesting point. I'm curious what you see as the better alternative. From the article, it seems that hiring a VP Engineering was absolutely the right call, both for the company and for himself. Also from the article, the right thing for the company and himself seems to be for him to be involved at something more than an individual contributor level. What would you suggest as the alternative for someone in that position? If a VP/Director Engineering type role isn't the best fit for a technical founder or early engineer, should they regress to an individual contributor's role or should they move on to a new gig, or what?