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

Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 632 posts

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#361

Post by sgift »

sidlls wrote: post #282
vvanders wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything you listed is just a multiplier on if the technology actually works . If you have a sucky multiplier of course your product won't do well but if it isn't technically executed right you still have a zero.

It isn't binary: value is created by all parties involved. It's just, in my opinion, that if we normalize the value created to be 1 for the product team, then engineering's value is less than 1, and sales and marketing is (more often) greater than or equal to 1, most of the time. Exceptions exist. But they're not normal, by definition.

> that if we normalize the value created to be 1 for the product team, then engineering's value is less than 1

Well yes, if we make completely baseless "normalizations" than that's true. Obviously, there is no reason to do that, but sure, if we do it that's the result.

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#362

Post by Newtopian »

mo1ok wrote: post #269
sidlls wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a different (admittedly controversial) take, having been on the "tech ladder" for some time now (as a Senior SWE and Lead Engineer): most individual contributors overestimate how much value they actually provide, especially in the Bay Area. That isn't to say we're not under-appreciated and under-compensated (we are both). But realistically much of the time work we do is easily done by literally thousands of ot…

I agree and both disagree. I'm working right now for a client that is a large corporation that didn't do any of those "fad" things - and it is _tremendously_ costly. For example, one team has spent several weeks and thousands of dollars to get another team's SOAP integration working correctly, when it would have taken five minutes in REST. The codebase did not follow a "elegant" practice and is an absolute spaghetti…

Regardless of how long it REST or how much you pump it full of SOAP, a spaghetti mess will still be a giant bowl of indigestible pasta.

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#363

Post by Veelox »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #215
jbeckham wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. Dave Ramsey's approach is probably my favorite. Basically, don't buy it if you don't have the money for it. https://www.daveramsey.com/

I'd say that isn't enough. Don't buy it unless you honestly believe that your life will be better for having bought it. Take the time and really think about it before making a purchase. You'll be shocked how much useless impulse buying the average person does.

I have found that Dave Ramsy is has really good advise if you are in debt, need to get out, and have no idea how to do it. I think it isn't very good advise if you are getting out of college and make 6 figures.

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#364

Post by defined »

volkk wrote: post #131
ivanjovanovic wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I overall agree with your sentiment. I would though not agree fully about where you assume value is created. Usually, developers / middle managers do not create value. Mostly they are implementing ideas of others and in these ideas is most of value concentrated. I would say they deliver value but don't create most of it.

Doesn't that depend on your definition of creating value? Im biased because I'm a developer perhaps, but I think that these ideas would all be theoretical concepts if these developers weren't actively building them. Perhaps I have a pessimistic view of the industry, but I've worked at 4-5 startups now (4-5 because one I'm on the fence about calling a startup) and I've come to find that the most value was always "crea…

This. Seen the same thing in 3 startups. Add me to the anecdata.

It would be awesome if we could get statistically significant numbers of people to report on this effect, although how to avoid selection bias etc. is beyond me atm.

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#365

Post by [deleted] »

kobeya wrote: post #233
nightski wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you know, you don't have to be average and can do 300k * 60% consulting or doing some other slightly more ambitious method while still not living in the bay area.

Outside of a few very highly specialized fields, I don't know anyone who does that successfully who didn't first get their start and build their network in the valley. EDIT: To be clear, I do know people that have "done their time" then left and pulled in really nice consulting rates working remotely from rural / flyover america or overseas, albeit often with a lot of travel to customer sites.

[deleted]

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#366

Post by rdiddly »

nichochar wrote: post #42

This is rather true in practice, but I find it tremendously depressing. I have found that the executive path is actually the one that most of the scumbags take, it is the one that attracts the most people, and those people are usually not likable, they're salespeople that sell themselves all day. The third group, the one that actually creates value, is accurately represented as not as successful both in terms of mone…

If engineers desire money and prestige (like executives), then the first question is "how are they different from the so-called scumbags who desire money and prestige?" The more you want money & prestige, the more you share a key characteristic with those people.

But let's leave that aside for the moment. On a practical level, if engineers are to achieve money and prestige, then they'll have to (and here come several different ways of saying the same thing):

- sell themselves

- play a power game

- play politics

- ask for money & prestige, in all the different ways including dressing and speaking in a way that signals to money-and-prestige-bestowing people that you should get money and prestige

And they will have to concentrate on this and get good at it, apply the tactics & techniques, and succeed. That's how executive scumbags do it. This takes a fair amount of time and effort, so you'll have to spend a lot of your time on it. Nobody is giving away money for free without even being asked. And nobody cares about raising engineers' salaries as much as engineers do, so it's unlikely you'll find anyone to do it on your behalf. You either ask for it until it happens (selling something, selling yourself) or you say "well heck I wanted to be an ENGINEER" and spend your time doing engineering, and don't worry what's in the other guy's pocket. Screw him, he probably has an ulcer and his wife's a harpy!

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#367

Post by [deleted] »

fny wrote: post #94
nightski wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you know, you don't have to be average and can do 300k * 60% consulting or doing some other slightly more ambitious method while still not living in the bay area.

By argument above, you'd still expect to make significantly more in the Bay Area.

[deleted]

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#368

Post by lmm »

unabst wrote: post #343
f2f wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are/were six-wheeled cars that got shut out because of market forces unrelated to how well they ran in competition. Google Tyrrell's Formula 1 Six Wheeler

Yes, there are always exceptions. The point is, what works works, and if you're forced to make things work, before you know it, you'll find yourself looking awfully similar to those in a similar situation. There is a reason why these business structures are so common. They work.

Is it that they're the only way that works? Or is it that everyone just assumes they're the only way? E.g. Valve took a radically different approach to management and organisational structure and seems to have been very successful.

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#369

Post by jeffdavis »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #342
unabst wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the one that actually creates value No. We all create value. Businesses, when running smoothly, are like a well oiled machine. Nothing is redundant. Garbage is collected. Businesses is cutthroat industries cannot afford to be redundant. I always wondered why all cars had 4 wheels. Turns out, the 3 wheeled car is horrible (see Top Gear), a 5 wheeled car is pointless, and a 2 wheeled car is a motorcycle. But when you…

This is exactly right. I've been in all three roles and all three are essential to success. I can also relate to the notion that the engineers do all the work, which was a sentiment I shared early in my career before I understood the kinds of problems executives and founders had to solve. I cringe when I hear an executive say "How hard can it be? Get some bright bulbs in here and have code up a solution that doesn't…

You don't really understand the value of a role until you see someone great for the role.

This adds to a lot of the bad feelings. Some people are great at marketing, but if you work for someone mediocre then it's easy to see how you will think they are worthless.

Post reply on HN