Live data from Hacker News

Why are so many successful founding CEOs software engineers?

iism.org

261–270 of 365 posts

Re: Why are so many successful founding CEOs software engineers?

#261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are assuming a lot. Many stanford phd's fail the google interview. I'd guess larry, sergey and zuckerberg had a pretty good chance of failing their own swe interviews...

What? You honestly think the Stanford PhDs who created Google couldn't get hired as basic SWEs? Seriously? I mean if true that says a lot more about the SWE interviews than it does about Stanford PhDs. I mean there are Yale JDs that fail the bar exam but no one would claim that the average Yale JD couldn't get hired as a Big Law associate or judicial clerk.

> You honestly think the Stanford PhDs who created Google couldn't get hired as basic SWEs? Seriously?

They would definitely get a phone screen based on their resumes, but there is a good chance they wouldn't even make it to the virtual onsite round. It's not like the interviewers would use their products or look at their code or dissertation or whatever.

Re: Why are so many successful founding CEOs software engineers?

#262
post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an Americansim in a job posting. Likely the company wants to use the same language in US as well as in Canada. Noone I know in Canada is called Software Engineer, we all refer to ourselves as Software Developer.

I'd be fascinated to know more. FWIW the UK has a similar thing for traditional Engineer roles. Nobody is legally permitted to call themselves a "tradtional" Engineer (such as Civil, Aerospace, Aeronautical, etc.) without, typically, at minimum a bachelor's degree or equivalent vocational training in that discipline. These are deemed "protected" roles but they are very specific - i.e. there needs to be some kind of a…

In Canada that "traditional" engineer is simply called "professional engineer", so it's a bit more grey.

I do know some people who have the title software engineer and they had to do like a whole ceremony where they swore an oath and got a ring and stuff.

They also have real-world legal rights and obligations that it grants them. For instance they can put their stamp on a structural drawing. Because they studied that stuff.

It does seem silly to have real-world building architecture requirements for a Software Engineer but that's where we're at.

Anyways, Software Developer (or even "Product Developer") is a much more common term in Canada as a result. No one wants to tangle with provincial regulations over a job title.

Re: Why are so many successful founding CEOs software engineers?

#263
post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google/Alphabet's current CEO Current, sure, but he showed up after Google was already successful. Becoming the CEO of Google made him successful, but he didn't make Google successful. > Apple's current CEO... Same thing. > Jobs, the founding CEO, was also not a software engineer. True but he co-founded it with a software engineer (Wozniak) who was arguably influential enough that he had the influence of a CEO if n…

>Current, sure, but he showed up after Google was already successful. Becoming the CEO of Google made him successful, but he didn't make Google successful. And the previous CEO of Google was Eric Schmidt, also not a software developer, and successful before taking the role at google. >True but he co-founded it with a software engineer (Wozniak) who was arguably influential enough that he had the influence of a CEO if…

Eric Schmidt wrote lex. He was an engineering executive at Sun. His background is absolutely as a software engineer.

People seem to be missing the point of the article. It's all about ways of thinking. It isn't literally saying that the more algorithms you memorise the better at CEO-ing you become. That's way too literal. It's saying things like, "if you've written and debugged software a bunch of times, you learn about iteration and predicting/root causing failures, which helps you be a better CEO".

Re: Why are so many successful founding CEOs software engineers?

#264
post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be fascinated to know more. FWIW the UK has a similar thing for traditional Engineer roles. Nobody is legally permitted to call themselves a "tradtional" Engineer (such as Civil, Aerospace, Aeronautical, etc.) without, typically, at minimum a bachelor's degree or equivalent vocational training in that discipline. These are deemed "protected" roles but they are very specific - i.e. there needs to be some kind of a…

In Canada that "traditional" engineer is simply called "professional engineer", so it's a bit more grey. I do know some people who have the title software engineer and they had to do like a whole ceremony where they swore an oath and got a ring and stuff. They also have real-world legal rights and obligations that it grants them. For instance they can put their stamp on a structural drawing. Because they studied that…

The ring has nothing to do with whether you can call yourself an engineer. There's also no architecture requirements. What could can do as a professional engineer is stamp things if you think you're qualified and have followed a proper procedure for it. If a p eng thinks the architecture drawing is good, they can stamp it. If they think the line of code is nice, they can stamp it too

Re: Why are so many successful founding CEOs software engineers?

#265
post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are NO CREDENTIALS needed to be called a "software engineer" In the USA, maybe that's true. In Canada, for instance, there are legal requirements to being able to call yourself an Engineer. That's why "Software Developer" is used.

In theory. Nobody actually listens to or cares about these guidelines.

They aren't guidelines, they're laws and regulations

Re: Why are so many successful founding CEOs software engineers?

#266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm the author bawolff, and I completely agree that the success of software engineers as CEOs is correlation, not causation. The likely cause is that software engineers learn to discover value by running value experiments. Zuckerberg and Bezos are well known for their value experiments in production. I believe that the nature of pursuing new value, in effect, taught them this practice. And to the comment below, when…

Okay, but this is a function of the medium not of the people. Crafting successful feedback loops has defined great leaders across industries for hundred(s) of years. A bent toward experimentation is not something that software engineers possess. It's a trait that great leaders build into their businesses.

In my circles, I see little to no experimentation done in the computer field, much to my dismay. We already have the best simulator for the universe, itself.

Re: Why are so many successful founding CEOs software engineers?

#267

All of the people on this list are "software engineers" in the sense that they have some rudimentary education in the field. Almost none of them could get a job as a software engineer at their own company, if they had to, because they would be completely unqualified. And I'm not looking down my nose at anyone: I have an undergraduate degree in CS, but I got it 16 years ago and then went to law school, and there is no…

I'm not an expert, but my feeling is you'd need just three things to get back into Big Tech: 1) At least a year or two of experience at another programming job, 2) MONTHS of time studying whiteboarding, and maybe 3) A few good referrals. I know, because I'm 34 and I have 9 years of enterprise experience. I'm trying to get into Big Tech right now (I've interviewed with Google and Amazon and I'm about to do Facebook).…

>rich people can afford to study for months for free. Poor people can't.

No offense but I laugh at this thought. Because most people don't realize what they are actually capable of-- they'd rather make excuses.

Excuses are easier to make than to sit down, intensely study, and build projects, in a public library, while living in a tent.

And, I think a lot of people in the "special snowflake" mentality are afraid to recognize that a lot of poor people choose to be poor-- and even glorify it: much like the "gloating over/glorifying victimhood" movement.

As someone who has spent almost a year living in a tent while studying technology, I beg to differ.

I studied for free for several months, a few times, while living in a tent & in a cabin without running water/electricity. It simply requires a strategy to find: internet access, free food, low cost showers, relatively safe tent space near a town/city, etc.

About 8 years ago I stopped working in entry level Marketing ($14/hr) to live in a tent (so as not to have to pay rent) and learn web design. It helped my get my first jobs.

It's a long story-- after a few months, went back to work in digital marketing. Later, lived in a tent again to study web app dev. After dropping out of grad school (lived off loans while living in shack without water & electricity), lived in relative's living room in SF Bay area for 1-2 months while applying to jobs, and landed first programming job.

There's nothing wrong with living in a tent, on a couch, etc-- whether rich or poor.

Living poor didn't stop me-- the willpower to put in the work to actively learn (actively i.e. keeping journals of notes & building projects) is more important than having a place to live.

Anyone can live in a tent and eat food from a food bank for a few months, and shower at a community center, while learning. (Assuming they don't have kids to take care of. If they have kids before getting their career skills together, well... that's just poor planning)

Strategies involved: Motivational thinking. Motivational music. Cultivating positive thought processes. A strong belief in the economics data (bureau of labor statistics). And a strong belief that studying web dev will result in a job, assuming a person is organized, studies, and creates a relevant portfolio with projects.

__________

Note: I have relatives who are currently quite poor, and have been as long as I've known them.

Their problem as I see it?

They refer to themselves as "Poor people" instead of "People who refuse to apply to jobs" or "People who refuse to research economically relevant skills and then build said skills in an organized manner".

The reality is that being poor or not poor IS in their control. And they choose to be poor. Why? Because they choose not to do the alternative: work towards a strategy resulting in not being poor.

I've counseled a cousin who is about my age. He prefers to wake up in the evening, smoke cannabis, stay up all night, and occasionally work manual labor jobs during the day. At age 30-ish. Yet is intelligent. Just chooses to prioritize instant gratification.

Re: Why are so many successful founding CEOs software engineers?

#268
Anecdotal. Back in the day, I worked for a large distribution company where the CEO, CCO, CFO, and COO came from IT. When you looked through the code you could still see their commits. They had a unique perspective because they had in their minds giant maps of how everything connected behind scenes. Purchasing, orders, payments, receivables, inventory, etc. For example. The people in purchasing only knew how purchasing worked but they didn't understand how the system connected with finance or operations. But the C* executives knew, and understood what was possible and what difficult. They were very effective. It was a pleasure working with them. To this day I think it was a great model.

Re: Why are so many successful founding CEOs software engineers?

#269
I used to point this out to a founder of a former company. He'd reject out ideas and suggestions, then make jokes like "there's a reason engineers aren't CEOs!" I had to remind him of all the successful companies run by engineers.

The best tech startups I've worked for had technical CEOs or co-founders with engineering backgrounds ("best" meaning good to work for and most successful.) Worst were guys who thought they were going to somehow be the next Bill Gates just because he didn't graduate college, either.

Re: Why are so many successful founding CEOs software engineers?

#270
post #265
post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory. Nobody actually listens to or cares about these guidelines.

They aren't guidelines, they're laws and regulations

They’re just guidelines until somebody decides to enforce them. My title has engineer in it and I’m not an engineer.
Post reply on HN