6 ms·

One thing you need to come to grips is that regardless of how smart you are, the VP of engineering is probably someone that has a lot more experience and clout

by steven2012 12y ago

One thing you need to come to grips is that regardless of how smart you are, the VP of engineering is probably someone that has a lot more experience and clout than you do. If they aren't, then the senior management of the company is terrible. If your company has grown to the size of 40-50 people, that's the time when they need real experience to help drive them forward. They can't take a chance on a great programmer who has never managed an organization before or grown it from 40 to 200 people. So you need to accept that. But you should stick by the VP of Engineering and learn whatever you can from them. Be their right-hand person, and try to become someone that the entire company goes to for technical issues. It's not hard to be the de facto CTO, just make sure you are a part of all the technical decisions, and a positive guiding force for the company. As you become more and more the face of technical decisions, eventually you'll be recognized for it, or you can go to another company in that higher role.

rubiquity 12y ago
Why is it acceptable for the Founder/CEO to continue leading the company at 40+ employees but not acceptable for the engineer to lead an engineering team at 40+ employees? Seems like a double standard.
- marincounty 12y ago
  I understand, but you are right it's a double standard. The Founder/CEO usually got that position for reasons other than their their technical know how. Personally, If a CEO doesn't understand most of the nuts and bolts of the company they are running; bye! bye!(That is unless they are brilliant in other areas in business.)
- steven2012 12y ago
  Ownership has its privileges.
- balls187 12y ago
  > Why is it acceptable for the Founder/CEO to continue leading the company at 40+ employees but not acceptable for the engineer to lead an engineering team at 40+ employees? Seems like a double standard. It is a double standard, but however it's hardly that cut and dry. Post Series B, if the board does not believe the current Founder/CEO can take the company to the next milestones of growth, they will replace them. Typically engineering teams need to scale sooner, so you you see a more experienced manager be brought in before the CEO is considered for replacing. The CEO may also has the additional benefit of having the investors and board help him or her in their decisions.
  - angersock 12y ago
    The board is just a bunch of old white dudes with money. The fuck do they know? EDIT: balls187 suggests they know how to make money--which is perhaps true, but not necessarily in your field of endeavor or business, unless you've picked them. kelnos is closer to it, which is that the board tells you what to do because they're the board and that's the power you've granted them. Again, in neither case, do we actually need to assume they are making the best or even informed decisions. There are some great stories of boards I've known locally suggesting really dumb things that hurt and even killed companies.
    - kelnos 12y ago
      Assuming you're correct (very debatable), it doesn't matter: they're the ones funding the company, so they get to make the decisions. This doesn't always work out well, but it's not unreasonable.
      - wpietri 12y ago
        One could make the same argument for hereditary monarchy. Which I would take as a sign that maybe it is unreasonable.
        infinite8s 12y ago
        Except that taking funding is a voluntary action. Living under a hereditary monarchy is not.
    - balls187 12y ago
      Presumably how to make money.
    - throwawaymaroon 12y ago
      What are you thinking? You can't just point out that decision-making in Silicon Valley lies with a clueless investor class. You've got to keep the charade going: keep them writing checks and thinking their input is valuable.
- scolson 12y ago
  Frequently in VC backed companies, founders are removed from the CEO role if they aren't showing the ability to monetize and determine "what's next." Sometimes the founder goes to a glorified secondary tech role like a fellow, and sometimes they leave the company all together.
- 31reasons 12y ago
  One BIG reason to start your own company but never ever become an employee at a startup. EDIT: The only benefit of working at startup (and a significant one) is to learn how startups work. If thats taken away from you then there is no point in risking your career.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- pbiggar 12y ago
  The two are not equivalent, as you need different attributes in each case. The CEO needs to have the product vision and complete information about the company (see http://www.bhorowitz.com/why_we_prefer_founding_ceos http://www.bhorowitz.com/why_we_prefer_founding_ceos for discussion), which typically only the founding CEO can have. You'll note that this is a continuation of the role they had when the company was small, though of course it requires a massive amount of learning. However, for all other roles in the company, the important thing is having the experience to scale and lead that part of the company: sales, marketing, product, support, engineering. When the company is young, those roles will be filled by allrounders: people a few years experience who do everything in that area. As the company grows, you'll want to hire VPs who have the skills to lead those areas, often people with >15 years experience as a practitioner and/or leader in those areas. It's not just engineering: you want a VP of Sales, a VP of marketing, a VP of product, etc. Those people will have the skills to take your existing sales/marketing/product/engineering org, and scale it without damaging it. If you have that skillset in your engineer #2, than it would make sense for them to do that role, but it's unlikely that they do, and certainly doesn't seem like it in th OP's case.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- bjelkeman-again 12y ago
  We are doing it differently. We don't think a tech driven business can be run by non tech leadership. We also don't think it can be run without business leadership. So we have two CEOs, on from tech and one from the business sector we are in. It works really well.
- zo1 12y ago
  Not to be snarky or anything but the first thing that pops to mind: "Because it's his company".
- stevewilhelm 12y ago
  > Why is it acceptable for the Founder/CEO Chances are the Founder/CEO has a controlling share of the company's stock.
- Toenex 12y ago
  Your observation is known as 'Founders Syndrome' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder%27s_syndrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder%27s_syndrome)
marktangotango 12y ago
This x1000. The last thing you should do is withdraw, and leave everyone high and dry. I've seen this situation, where the 3 remaining of the original cohort, for some reason, resented the new CTO, and basically abandoned the company. Only reason they're still here is they have an ownsership stake and are friends with CEO. They could've been hugely impactful to the success of the company, but instead, they're sitting back to watch the everyone else fail. Also, with this crew in particular, they really weren't that good. They begat a lava layered monstrosity that doesn't scale and isn't maintainable. Make sure that's not you.
- v13inc 12y ago
  What is wrong with leaving everyone high and dry? The CEO has no qualms about doing that to devs. If an engineer leaving puts the company in a bad spot, then they are understaffed and need better management that can foresee and handle those transitions before they happen. It's all part of proper engineering culture.
  - pm 12y ago
    This is what happens when one person stops communicating to another due to lack of awareness; the other assumes the worst, and stops reciprocating. They are the only one who knows what's going on, yet it almost always comes down to them saying "Why should I be the first to re-establish communication?". You should do it because you're an adult, and the other person isn't a mind-reader; if you don't, you don't deserve any sympathy when the shit hits the fan.
    - takemikazuchi 12y ago
      I think even before you bring responsibility into the picture, there's a lot for each actor in this situation to gain from reestablishing communications(I certainly can't see what they would lose, except for face). This is assuming the other party is mature and rational though.
- peteretep 12y ago
  You're suggesting he owes them something, and it really sounds like he doesn't - they've passed him over for career advancement, so he needs to find somewhere he'll be appreciated

rubiquity 12y ago

Why is it acceptable for the Founder/CEO to continue leading the company at 40+ employees but not acceptable for the engineer to lead an engineering team at 40+ employees? Seems like a double standard.

marincounty 12y ago
I understand, but you are right it's a double standard. The Founder/CEO usually got that position for reasons other than their their technical know how. Personally, If a CEO doesn't understand most of the nuts and bolts of the company they are running; bye! bye!(That is unless they are brilliant in other areas in business.)
steven2012 12y ago
Ownership has its privileges.
balls187 12y ago
> Why is it acceptable for the Founder/CEO to continue leading the company at 40+ employees but not acceptable for the engineer to lead an engineering team at 40+ employees? Seems like a double standard. It is a double standard, but however it's hardly that cut and dry. Post Series B, if the board does not believe the current Founder/CEO can take the company to the next milestones of growth, they will replace them. Typically engineering teams need to scale sooner, so you you see a more experienced manager be brought in before the CEO is considered for replacing. The CEO may also has the additional benefit of having the investors and board help him or her in their decisions.
- angersock 12y ago
  The board is just a bunch of old white dudes with money. The fuck do they know? EDIT: balls187 suggests they know how to make money--which is perhaps true, but not necessarily in your field of endeavor or business, unless you've picked them. kelnos is closer to it, which is that the board tells you what to do because they're the board and that's the power you've granted them. Again, in neither case, do we actually need to assume they are making the best or even informed decisions. There are some great stories of boards I've known locally suggesting really dumb things that hurt and even killed companies.
  - kelnos 12y ago
    Assuming you're correct (very debatable), it doesn't matter: they're the ones funding the company, so they get to make the decisions. This doesn't always work out well, but it's not unreasonable.
    - wpietri 12y ago
      One could make the same argument for hereditary monarchy. Which I would take as a sign that maybe it is unreasonable.
      - infinite8s 12y ago
        Except that taking funding is a voluntary action. Living under a hereditary monarchy is not.
  - balls187 12y ago
    Presumably how to make money.
  - throwawaymaroon 12y ago
    What are you thinking? You can't just point out that decision-making in Silicon Valley lies with a clueless investor class. You've got to keep the charade going: keep them writing checks and thinking their input is valuable.
scolson 12y ago
Frequently in VC backed companies, founders are removed from the CEO role if they aren't showing the ability to monetize and determine "what's next." Sometimes the founder goes to a glorified secondary tech role like a fellow, and sometimes they leave the company all together.
31reasons 12y ago
One BIG reason to start your own company but never ever become an employee at a startup. EDIT: The only benefit of working at startup (and a significant one) is to learn how startups work. If thats taken away from you then there is no point in risking your career.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
pbiggar 12y ago
The two are not equivalent, as you need different attributes in each case. The CEO needs to have the product vision and complete information about the company (see http://www.bhorowitz.com/why_we_prefer_founding_ceos http://www.bhorowitz.com/why_we_prefer_founding_ceos for discussion), which typically only the founding CEO can have. You'll note that this is a continuation of the role they had when the company was small, though of course it requires a massive amount of learning. However, for all other roles in the company, the important thing is having the experience to scale and lead that part of the company: sales, marketing, product, support, engineering. When the company is young, those roles will be filled by allrounders: people a few years experience who do everything in that area. As the company grows, you'll want to hire VPs who have the skills to lead those areas, often people with >15 years experience as a practitioner and/or leader in those areas. It's not just engineering: you want a VP of Sales, a VP of marketing, a VP of product, etc. Those people will have the skills to take your existing sales/marketing/product/engineering org, and scale it without damaging it. If you have that skillset in your engineer #2, than it would make sense for them to do that role, but it's unlikely that they do, and certainly doesn't seem like it in th OP's case.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
bjelkeman-again 12y ago
We are doing it differently. We don't think a tech driven business can be run by non tech leadership. We also don't think it can be run without business leadership. So we have two CEOs, on from tech and one from the business sector we are in. It works really well.
zo1 12y ago
Not to be snarky or anything but the first thing that pops to mind: "Because it's his company".
stevewilhelm 12y ago
> Why is it acceptable for the Founder/CEO Chances are the Founder/CEO has a controlling share of the company's stock.
Toenex 12y ago
Your observation is known as 'Founders Syndrome' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder%27s_syndrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder%27s_syndrome)

marktangotango 12y ago

This x1000. The last thing you should do is withdraw, and leave everyone high and dry. I've seen this situation, where the 3 remaining of the original cohort, for some reason, resented the new CTO, and basically abandoned the company. Only reason they're still here is they have an ownsership stake and are friends with CEO. They could've been hugely impactful to the success of the company, but instead, they're sitting back to watch the everyone else fail. Also, with this crew in particular, they really weren't that good. They begat a lava layered monstrosity that doesn't scale and isn't maintainable. Make sure that's not you.

v13inc 12y ago
What is wrong with leaving everyone high and dry? The CEO has no qualms about doing that to devs. If an engineer leaving puts the company in a bad spot, then they are understaffed and need better management that can foresee and handle those transitions before they happen. It's all part of proper engineering culture.
- pm 12y ago
  This is what happens when one person stops communicating to another due to lack of awareness; the other assumes the worst, and stops reciprocating. They are the only one who knows what's going on, yet it almost always comes down to them saying "Why should I be the first to re-establish communication?". You should do it because you're an adult, and the other person isn't a mind-reader; if you don't, you don't deserve any sympathy when the shit hits the fan.
  - takemikazuchi 12y ago
    I think even before you bring responsibility into the picture, there's a lot for each actor in this situation to gain from reestablishing communications(I certainly can't see what they would lose, except for face). This is assuming the other party is mature and rational though.
peteretep 12y ago
You're suggesting he owes them something, and it really sounds like he doesn't - they've passed him over for career advancement, so he needs to find somewhere he'll be appreciated