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

Post by ckastner » Fri, Sep 29, 2017, 9:42 AM UTC

kbart wrote: post #538

slg wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If your product is software, literally it is impossible that sales add more value than the engineering organization that builds the product. Without engineering organization, you don't have anything to sell. Without sales and marketing, you will also have a hard time. It is collaboration what brings success. The distinction is that product development, sales and marketing can act as multipliers in a way that enginee…

"The distinction is that product development, sales and marketing can act as multipliers in a way that engineering seldom does." If you don't have a product, you can multiply zero as much as you want, it's still zero. Engineering provides base value, everything else is just build on top of it.

Post by ckastner » Fri, Sep 29, 2017, 10:26 AM UTC

kbart wrote: post #542

ckastner wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a product nobody knows about, its objective value is also zero.

If you make a product that nobody needs, that's another problem entirely.

Post by gps372 » Fri, Sep 29, 2017, 10:37 AM UTC

eikenberry wrote: post #532

btilly wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a twist on this to think about. Careers are made or broken on whether you get to be an idea person or an implementer. If you're an idea person you get the lion's share of the credit for anything that goes right, and can always blame your failures on the implementor. Plus ideas are easier to come up with than implementations. If you're an implementor you work hard, and then don't get much of the credit. But wi…

Calling them an idea person is, I think, unfair. The idea is the simple part. It is taking this idea to market, getting people to implement it, that is not easy. I'm not saying the implementors deserve the level of credit they get, but reducing the organizers to simple 'idea person' is somewhat disingenuous.

Post by richardknop » Fri, Sep 29, 2017, 10:58 AM UTC

ryanSrich wrote: post #294

wolco wrote: post #45

Missed the all important contractor. More money, more control over types of projects taken but little control over actual project.

If I had to recommend any path, contractor would be at the bottom of the list. The stress, constantly shifting from one company to another, not knowing when you're going to land another client or if your contract will be extended, having to constantly look for new gigs, etc. Finding a new job is like moving. It just sucks all around. Being a contractor is like constantly having to find a new job.

Post by kamaal » Fri, Sep 29, 2017, 11:10 AM UTC

sidlls wrote: post #252

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…

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…