Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: What's left for early startup engineers as the company grows?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 193 posts

Re: Ask HN: What's left for early startup engineers as the company grows?

#121

Post by wbillingsley »

wbillingsley wrote: post #120

Perhaps if you can't advance inside the company it's time to advance outside the company. They may well consider you as "an engineer with little prior experience, and we only gave him that role because we couldn't afford someone experienced yet". To the next firm, you are an engineer with experience building a company's central product from the ground up and leading a team of 40+ people in a high risk start-up enviro…

(pardon, I misread your post and got the number of people you led wrong, but the principle of the post is the same)

Re: Ask HN: What's left for early startup engineers as the company grows?

#122

Post by wwweston »

> Where did I fail to claim my part when the company was growing?

One thing that might have been better if you cared about not being hired over: ask for the title of CTO or VP of Engineering when you were hired. If they give it to you, you know you're on the same page. And if they won't give it out to you when they're least proven, you can bet that it's unlikely they'll consider giving it to you later when they have more options (and can bring in a new shiny person whose only limitations are those they can discover before hiring).

That's in the past, though. The good news is that you've got a good story here that counters any claim that what you do best is "just writing code." Sit down with the management that's trying to define you that way. Remind them everything you've delivered, just like you told us. After that recap, tell them something like "I've enjoyed contributing to the company's success in all these ways that go beyond writing code, I see continuing to contribute and grow in this way as an important part of my career development." Don't make this about competition with the new VP and ops guy -- let management know you intend to do everything you can to help the new hires make their big contributions too. Just let them know you need a continued technical vision/management role, a title that reflects it (though it's probably not going to be VP), and a path for the future. If possible, come up with some new ideas/initiatives of your own before this conversation, and maybe even a title to suggest. Sell them on a vision of how letting you contribute in this way is going to make everybody more successful, just as it's gotten them to the point where they're at.

And if they don't respond to that... if everything you've written here is true, I suspect there's no shortage of other startups/businesses that might be pretty interested in having you help them succeed.

Re: Ask HN: What's left for early startup engineers as the company grows?

#123

Post by balls187 »

angersock wrote: post #116
balls187 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. T…

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 ne…

Presumably how to make money.

Re: Ask HN: What's left for early startup engineers as the company grows?

#124

Post by jchrisa »

Speaking as a founder who has tried hard to replace myself (so that I can focus on what I do best, which by definition doesn't fit into an org chart), maybe you'd benefit from switching gears completely, and using this opportunity to learn and experience the business side of things. Probably it would be hard to find a better chance to get a front row seat.

Re: Ask HN: What's left for early startup engineers as the company grows?

#125

Post by LunaSea »

marktangotango wrote: post #62
steven2012 wrote: post #16

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…

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…

I don't understand why this attitude is a problem in this context.

It's their last and only pressure point in the political game that happens in the company.

If you don't feel that your skills are fairly compensated and you can't leave (due to contracting or vesting time) you don't have any other options.

Re: Ask HN: What's left for early startup engineers as the company grows?

#126

Post by _3u10 »

balls187 wrote: post #117
briandear wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. If he doesn't have an open line with the CEO, then I would leave, assuming I have some percentage of options that had vested. I would stick around long enough to vest, then go start your own thing or be a cofounder of something. I know this situation well. I am employee #1 in a 55 person company and I feel like I might as well be employee 55. But, since I'm remote, I can do my thing, write code, and generall…

> I'm remote, I can do my thing, write code, and generally be left alone while getting paid regularly. So being cut out of the loop does have some advantages, especially if you're remote. There is the opposite end too. I joined a 100 person company, and some early founding employees were clearly resting and vesting, while I was working nights and weekends to iterate and replace prototype software written by early tea…

Software might be about meritocracy but power is not.

It's not entitlement so much as ownership, they don't feel they are entitled to 5% of the company, they own 5% of the company.

Depending on how much equity they have collectively they might be able to fire the CEO if push comes to shove.

Re: Ask HN: What's left for early startup engineers as the company grows?

#127

Post by pm »

v13inc wrote: post #112
marktangotango wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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.

Re: Ask HN: What's left for early startup engineers as the company grows?

#128

Post by throwawaymaroon »

angersock wrote: post #116
balls187 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. T…

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 ne…

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.

Re: Ask HN: What's left for early startup engineers as the company grows?

#129

Post by arielm »

vinceguidry wrote: post #103
arielm wrote: post #88

As a technical founder I actually face the issue on the other side, which is how to keep those that have been around for 5+ years challenged and motivated. Here are a few things I've learned that might help with perspective: 1. You shouldn't be afraid to ask for what you want. As a founder, it's tough to always know what goes on in everyone's mind. I try as much as I can but when I'm a part of the conversation I will…

It took me awhile to realize that management is, generally, not a skilled profession. Not saying that certain skills can make you better or worse at it, but that you don't need them to be effective. In a skilled profession, not having them means all the difference. You can't wire up a house without the skills. You can't build a web app without knowing a whole lot of stuff, at least not within any time frame someone w…

As a founder I manage various teams full-time. I don't consider myself to be a manager because ultimately I don't report to anyone, but I disagree with most of what you're describing.

Skills - You may have only worked with bad managers because to be a good manager, much like anything else, requires certain abilities. While some have those it's practice and experience that make you really good.

> You can't wire up a house without the skills. You can't build a web app without knowing a whole lot of stuff, at least not within any time frame someone would pay you to make one in.

You sure can wire up a house without skills. The house will probably end up burning down due to the many mistakes you'll make but it doesn't mean it won't work. On the same token you can manage without skills, but those you manage will burn out, produce less, be unhappy, and pray that you'll disappear one day (or get fired).

Delegation isn't as simple as just telling others what to do, that's a gross misconception.

> You can have responsibilities, in which case you can justify doing anything so long as it fits into the responsibility and you can make your bosses believe that.

Really? Don't you feel behaving in such a way won't help the company you're helping build?

I do agree that finding things to do and potentially developing something that may not get the attention it needs is a good idea, but that's good for any stage of the business.

Post reply on HN