Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure what point you're trying to make here. You can go and start your company any time, sure, but I would much rather be a VP in a medium sized startup than a founder. And to get to VP, even in a small organisation, you certainly need competence.
> And to get to VP, even in a small organisation, you certainly need competence. I don't know if I agree with that. Anyway, competence comes at various levels.
On Becoming a VP of Engineering
121–130 of 400 posts
Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering
#122I found this part amusing: "Charity [company founder] has a more intuitive, spontaneous style, often shines brightest in a crisis, is allergic to checklists". It looks like an almost inadvertent admission. In other words, the founder doesn't have the qualifications or characteristics that the underlings assume they need to be in a leadership position. I automatically become CEO, CTO, etc., by starting my own company,…
You’re forgetting that companies need both Visionary AND Execution focused leaders at the very top. I’m an execution through and through guy, but I learned early on that my co-founder’s ideal traits are the opposite of mine, and that’s what you’re seeing here. What’s being described is a classic Visionary - spontaneous, jumps around and can be distracting, yes - but crucially, is also an amazing innovator and motivat…
The description reads more like someone who is simply high energy and brings a lot of enthusiasm and positivity. I don't see much suggestion that the person is necessarily very Visionary:
> [company founder] has a more intuitive, spontaneous style, often shines brightest in a crisis, is allergic to checklists
There is a lot of value in having leaders who are positive, high energy, and can motivate teams. I've come across a few leaders who had boundless energy, enthusiasm, and enough charisma to lead teams into any effort. However, the ones without the right amount of execution ability ultimately just led us to slosh around doing a lot of half-useless work in a high-energy manner.
These days I'm more cautious when I meet someone with abnormally high charisma and energy levels. I probe more for knowledge and experience in executing. Many of the highest charisma leaders I've come across haven't had the abilities to back it up, but they've used their charisma and charm to work their way into the right companies and right meeting rooms at the right time to become associated with success.
Of the successful startups I've worked at, I can think of several people who were charismatic, confident, high-energy, but didn't really contribute to execution. Even worse, some of them detracted from progress as they used their charisma to redirect efforts in self-serving ways, or spent their time pushing podcasts, building social media profiles, and attending conferences instead of working for the company.
Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure what point you're trying to make here. You can go and start your company any time, sure, but I would much rather be a VP in a medium sized startup than a founder. And to get to VP, even in a small organisation, you certainly need competence.
> And to get to VP, even in a small organisation, you certainly need competence. I don't know if I agree with that. Anyway, competence comes at various levels.
Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re forgetting that companies need both Visionary AND Execution focused leaders at the very top. I’m an execution through and through guy, but I learned early on that my co-founder’s ideal traits are the opposite of mine, and that’s what you’re seeing here. What’s being described is a classic Visionary - spontaneous, jumps around and can be distracting, yes - but crucially, is also an amazing innovator and motivat…
> You’re forgetting that companies need both Visionary AND Execution focused leaders at the very top. I'm not forgetting. And I'm not claiming that this promotion was a mistake. I am raising questions about the narrative that the author is telling/selling. Consider how you'll likely not see such a long-winded post from company founders explaining in detail why they chose themselves for their own jobs. They founded a…
Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You’re forgetting that companies need both Visionary AND Execution focused leaders at the very top. I'm not forgetting. And I'm not claiming that this promotion was a mistake. I am raising questions about the narrative that the author is telling/selling. Consider how you'll likely not see such a long-winded post from company founders explaining in detail why they chose themselves for their own jobs. They founded a…
Not sure what point you're trying to make here. You can go and start your company any time, sure, but I would much rather be a VP in a medium sized startup than a founder. And to get to VP, even in a small organisation, you certainly need competence.
Being extremely competent is one way to get into these positions, but it's hardly the only way.
These positions are often given to people who are viewed as the most loyal, most credentialed, most connected, or most polished. Competency is often assumed, or even wished for, but it may not be the driving force behind the decision making.
I've been a at a couple high-growth startups. The number of people who get hired or promoted into VP positions for no reason other than having the right connections and being loyal for empire-building purposes was shocking.
Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering
#126Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering
#127> If I went looking for another startup to join at some point in the future, I would specifically look for an exec team or founding team that could cite examples of building up high performers for internal promotions — and swiftly recognizing and rewarding those already having impact outside of their role-defined scope. Yeah in my experience this seems very rare. The default in most start ups I've seen is that when a…
> The default in most start ups I've seen is that when a new level in the hierarchy becomes necessary and/or available (i.e. the existing person leaves) is to hire externally. Count me among the people burned by this. I joined a startup with promises of being promoted when the department grew. I was required to hit certain performance metrics, which I exceeded. Then it came time to hire and suddenly the position was…
Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Startup" by definition is companies that need large-scale growth to succeed. Uber, DoorDash, those kinds of businesses are start-ups. It doesn't need to be VC investment necessarily, but it needs a lot of capital to get going and there's a certain amount of network effects. That's not marketing, that's what the word means. > Most new and growing tech startups are not in fact VC funded. Then they're probably not star…
I would draw the line slightly differently. Bootstrapped startups are still startups. So for me the definition is more "company exploring a novel technology, product, or business model". Most new businesses are doing something that's well understood. Opening a new restaurant or corner store is hard, but it doesn't have the same need to figure out something fundamentally new.
Numbers-wise, I'd think VC-funded startups merit the distinction. They're (a) relying on financiers to make their strategy work (b) there's significant positive & negative impacts of that decision vs everyone else (c) they're the minority.
Startups using non-VC revenue are the majority and also doing all sorts of great work in invention+innovation in tech, business model, doing with scalable ideas, etc. VC $ buys things like press relationships and "X raised Y" headlines, but thankfully the days of breathless capital raise news on tech crunch are much more zzz now.
Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, I didn’t read that at all as a remark about someone’s qualifications. It seems a straightforward and friendly admission of where 2 different styles exist. Acknowledging those style differences is a _good_ and healthy thing and not a tacit appeal to hierarchy. Second, your whole comment is littered with implicit reinforcement of the hierarchy. You use terms like underling, bosses, and equate the founding of the…
In modern, tech-enabled knowledge industries managers aren't leaders, they are just a waste of money that could instead go to the people actually getting things done.
Some management is better than others, of course. But they ARE necessary.