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

On Becoming a VP of Engineering

honeycomb.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 400 posts

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#141

Post by mattgreenrocks »

lapcat wrote: post #15

I 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,…

> I've always felt that hierarchical, subservient thinking is strange

It is deeply weird: it is perfectly reasonable to lead/be led without believing that the leader is somehow better.

> These are all written by people whose minds have been thoroughly corporatized, true believers in the hierarchy with an inner need to justify it.

This sounds very teenage edgelord, but I really think a majority of the population acts as if a primary motivator for them is outsourcing as much risk/hard things as allowable. To do so entails buying into false/constructed realities to justify their own passivity.

Thus, job titles attain a status of Real Enough, because everyone’s play acting that they’re real, and that bootstraps them into actual reality. Collective result of sunk costs by the faithful.

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#142

Post by opportune »

jerrygenser wrote: post #93
Solvency wrote: post #82

This is really self-fellating...and to post it on your own employer's site is brazen to me.

These corporate blogs are almost 100% purpose for prospective employees. This is a way for prospective employees to become sold the corporate culture is rainbow and unicorns. It's standard corporate PR.

I could be wrong but I think corporate blogs are also motivated by improving SEO/pagerank. That doesn’t mean the content lacks value though.

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#143

Post by lapcat »

brewdad wrote: post #123
lapcat wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You can get to VP without competence. Staying there requires it. You don't necessarily have to be the most competent person possible but there is a floor.

> You don't necessarily have to be the most competent person possible but there is a floor.

Heh, well that's not really saying much.

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#144

Post by jt2190 »

morgante wrote: post #140
lapcat wrote: post #81

Earlier 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…

Have you ever started a company? > The company founders suddenly made it to the top at the very beginning without any of that, without "deserving" anything. When they started, they weren't at the "top" of anything . It's not like someone just handed them the CEO title of a successful firm. Building a company from scratch is way more work than climbing a corporate hierarchy.

I’m not sure what you’re taking issue with, as that’s his point: If the founder did not require someone else’s “approval” to take the position of CEO, why should, say, a developer believe that they need “approval” from their organization to think that they’re senior-level? It’s giving the hierarchy above way too much control of your career.

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#145

Post by lapcat »

morgante wrote: post #140
lapcat wrote: post #81

Earlier 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…

Have you ever started a company? > The company founders suddenly made it to the top at the very beginning without any of that, without "deserving" anything. When they started, they weren't at the "top" of anything . It's not like someone just handed them the CEO title of a successful firm. Building a company from scratch is way more work than climbing a corporate hierarchy.

> Have you ever started a company?

Yes. Care to take back your comment now?

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#146

Post by ddq »

lapcat wrote: post #81
lordofmoria wrote: post #72

Earlier 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…

Once attuned to unjust or involuntary hierarchies, one realizes their ubiquity in modern society. Hierarchy and bureaucracy are useful and efficient, but while the imagined ideal is a meritocratic Star Trek bridge crew, they are commonly economically coercive, Kafkaesque, nepotistic, oligarchic power structures that serve those at the top rather than serving the systems’ purported ends.

At least that’s my worldview, which is broadly anarchic. I disagree with the notion of people having to - by force or coercion - submit to another’s power without easy escape. I am happy to follow leaders voluntarily for mutual benefit as long as I am truly free to reclaim my autonomy at any time - the social contract.

But think of the economics snares - particularly tying employment to housing and healthcare, and birth citizenship being involuntary and difficult/expensive to change. I could go further into detail to summarize my beliefs but you probably get my general perspective. I’m fortunate enough that in theory I could escape most of the hierarchies I’m under, but most humans in practice do not have that freedom and that saddens me.

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#147

Post by lapcat »

opportune wrote: post #139
lapcat wrote: post #15

I 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,…

Really disagree with this - a lot of process-oriented checklist-following managers are actually terrible leaders. You don’t need to be particularly skilled to do that. As a CEO you can bring a lot more to the table than that, and delegate it if you need to - it’s not an uncommon skill - to focus on adding value by setting direction, fighting fires, focusing on whatever is currently the most important problem or proje…

> That doesn’t mean this CEO is unqualified though.

I didn't say they were unqualified. I said, "the founder doesn't have the qualifications or characteristics that the underlings assume they need to be in a leadership position."

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#148

Post by awill »

VP of Engineering isn't some standard role you can compare across companies. My current company, Directors often have orgs of up to 500, and VPs usually have 1k+, sometimes 3-5k.

To pretend that a VP at a startup, with an org of 50 is the same as a VP at an FAANG with 1k+ is just silly. I'm not saying one is better, but clearly they require very different skills.

In fact, I've seen first hand that people who are given the VP role at small companies sometimes don't understand this, and are then shocked when they apply to a FAANG and are offered a manager or senior manager role.

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#149

Post by lapcat »

jt2190 wrote: post #144
morgante wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever started a company? > The company founders suddenly made it to the top at the very beginning without any of that, without "deserving" anything. When they started, they weren't at the "top" of anything . It's not like someone just handed them the CEO title of a successful firm. Building a company from scratch is way more work than climbing a corporate hierarchy.

I’m not sure what you’re taking issue with, as that’s his point: If the founder did not require someone else’s “approval” to take the position of CEO, why should, say, a developer believe that they need “approval” from their organization to think that they’re senior-level? It’s giving the hierarchy above way too much control of your career.

This reply was better than my reply, thanks.

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#150

Post by ZephyrBlu »

lapcat wrote: post #143
brewdad wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can get to VP without competence. Staying there requires it. You don't necessarily have to be the most competent person possible but there is a floor.

> You don't necessarily have to be the most competent person possible but there is a floor. Heh, well that's not really saying much.

Floor = minor negative impact to the business due to your (in)competence.
Post reply on HN