On Becoming a VP of Engineering • Hacker News Board

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#211

Post by hitekker » Fri, Jul 14, 2023, 9:31 PM UTC

lapcat wrote: post #54

kasey_junk wrote: post #40

Earlier 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…

> First, I didn’t read that at all as a remark about someone’s qualifications. It wasn't. That's why I said, "It looks like an almost inadvertent admission." The rest of the blog post, though, is explaining in detail why the author qualified for their promotion. > Second, your whole comment is littered with implicit reinforcement of the hierarchy. You use terms like underling, bosses, and equate the founding of the c…

Some people are afraid to question authority. You have to sugercoat the message a few times before they can stomach the complexities of social hierarchies.

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#212

Post by jselysianeagle » Fri, Jul 14, 2023, 9:38 PM UTC

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…

> The best reason to be ambitious is the realization that the people above you are just as flawed as you are.

Can I steal this? It's so on-point and I've seen it many, many times throughout the course of my career. There's been a few truly brilliant managers and principal engineers I've had the good fortune to work under, but for the vast majority of upper level leadership this tracks.

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#213

Post by lnenad » Fri, Jul 14, 2023, 9:38 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #112

will_gottschalk wrote: post #4

A quote really jumped out at me: > VPs of Engineering from frontend backgrounds are relatively rare, and it’s partly because the most pressing technical challenges a startup faces are often around scaling, reliability, and backend architecture. If we had been dealing with nonstop incidents, constant struggles with scaling, and major architectural challenges with our query and storage engine, someone with deeper backe…

> I’ve worked at companies in the past where frontend is looked down upon because all of our leaders are backend/infra people. I think there's a lot going on here, but one of them is definitely gender. Front-end development is often feminine-coded and seen as lesser. E.g.: https://thoughtbot.com/blog/tailwind-and-the-femininity-of-c... I also think in tech-land we tend to associate leadership with male-coded traits.…

So based on an opinion of one person or a very small number of them you write

> but one of them is definitely gender

Why is it so easy to blame something on sexism?

> macho big-swinging-dick alpha nerd tech bro, then that can involve performing genius via solo cowboy coding

This is such a small number of people that act like this and write shitty code because of it that it's not worth mentioning.

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#214

Post by hitekker » Fri, Jul 14, 2023, 10:04 PM UTC

morgante wrote: post #189

lapcat wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, I've started a company, contrary to your previous assumption, and I know other people who have started companies. You don't speak for everyone or even most people. If climbing the corporate hierarchy is so much easier, then how high up the ladder did you get exactly?

I never said you hadn't started a company. I explicitly asked if you had—the opposite of assuming. Nothing in my comment assumed you hadn't. Since you're unwilling to argue in good faith, we can resolve this.

You didn't read his top-level comment about where he said he started a company, so it's actually you who aren't arguing in good faith.

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#215

Post by drewcoo » Fri, Jul 14, 2023, 10:17 PM UTC

nickserv wrote: post #168

zer8k wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the CEO walks the company can very reasonably find another stiff in a suit that can run the show. Maybe at a slightly slower or more conservative pace but life moves on. If 80% of the engineering team walks your company catches fire and burns to the ground. The greatest case study we've seen is Twitter. Everything above contributor level is some varying degree of spreadsheet monkeying. Anyone with 20 years of runn…

I'm an engineer in a sales team, and my experience has shown that most engineers are terrible at selling... Not necessarily because they can't be taught to, but because they don't *want* to. Also if marketing isn't bringing in prospects, sales isn't closing deals, the UI isn't designed right, the documentation sucks, HR hires idiots ... I guarantee you the company will fail, even if it has the best engineering team.…

> most engineers are terrible at selling

Selling often involves . . . not lying exactly, but "creative truthing." Engineers tend to dislike that. And not just software engineers.

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#216

Post by lapcat » Fri, Jul 14, 2023, 10:27 PM UTC

jselysianeagle wrote: post #212

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…

> The best reason to be ambitious is the realization that the people above you are just as flawed as you are. Can I steal this? It's so on-point and I've seen it many, many times throughout the course of my career. There's been a few truly brilliant managers and principal engineers I've had the good fortune to work under, but for the vast majority of upper level leadership this tracks.

> Can I steal this?

Feel free!

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#217

Post by djcapelis » Fri, Jul 14, 2023, 10:41 PM UTC

zer8k wrote: post #155

ska wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The actual people who succeed by not running the company in the ground are the engineers This typically just isn't close to true. If you are in a tech based business, having competent engineering is table stakes, but that's not enough by itself.

If the CEO walks the company can very reasonably find another stiff in a suit that can run the show. Maybe at a slightly slower or more conservative pace but life moves on. If 80% of the engineering team walks your company catches fire and burns to the ground. The greatest case study we've seen is Twitter. Everything above contributor level is some varying degree of spreadsheet monkeying. Anyone with 20 years of runn…

> If the CEO walks the company can very reasonably find another stiff in a suit that can run the show. Maybe at a slightly slower or more conservative pace but life moves on. If 80% of the engineering team walks your company catches fire and burns to the ground. The greatest case study we've seen is Twitter. Everything above contributor level is some varying degree of spreadsheet monkeying. Anyone with 20 years of running a business can be dropped into this post-MBA corporate world and do great.

I’m not sure Twitter is a good case study of CEOs being interchangable.

> If 80% of the engineering team walks your company catches fire and burns to the ground

Why was that again? That 80% of the engineering team, uhm, “walked”?

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#218

Post by rgifford » Fri, Jul 14, 2023, 10:42 PM UTC

borski wrote: post #203

rgifford wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree: Conflict resolution, public speaking, salesmanship -- they're all valuable. They make for better people in this world. When it comes to how these traits translate to the success of leaders or companies? I have no idea. I'd guess causation there is noisy. I bet leaders get a lot of mileage out of bullshit like playing surreptitious games for social capital, managing risk in decision making by offloading it an…

> I bet leaders get a lot of mileage out of bullshit like playing surreptitious games for social capital, managing risk in decision making by offloading it and/or shifting blame, carefully crafting turn-of-phrase to manipulate people against their own self-interest -- especially in favor of a compensation structure that has senior leadership making 300:1 versus their lowest paid workers. That would be a bad bet. Ther…

> That would be a bad bet.

It's a terrible bet. But it's the direction American corporate leadership has overwhelmingly been heading for the past couple decades [1] [2].

I get the sense you've had the good fortune to run and work in smaller startups in The Bay Area that have been unprecedentedly democratic in the scheme of human enterprise. I'm guessing you've also had the good fortune to do that during a 3 decade span of falling interest rates that drove money into VC and startups in a similarly unprecedented fashion. Everyone plays nice when they're eating good.

I studied social sciences / economics and it gave me a lot of perspective when I went to SF for tech work. The history of American labor is one of asymmetrical power and blood. This isn't a notion we've disabused ourselves of and grown beyond. Between the early 1800s and early 1900s the US saw decades of terrorism against workers by corporate leaders. Look into Labor Wars [3], The Pullman Strike [4], The Battle of Blair Mountain [5], The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire [6]. After labor laws cemented and wars settled, corporate leaders moved towards globalization to start the process all over again in other countries and hollowed out middle America to do so.

Historically, the defining traits of American corporate leadership are amorality and self-pursuit. Startups have this silly habit of sitting around to LARP as altruists that might, maybe stumble into billions of dollars. Like if they talk about company values, truisms, and team building enough it changes gravity. Who is getting paid what? That's all that matters. If you're making a half a percent over four years as the 5th hire at a startup, you're getting screwed unless your founder is the second coming of Jesus Christ himself. I think workers and the general public are waking up to this and getting tired of lip service and signaling from leaders that play altruist or cut throat as they see fit.

I'm using the pronoun 'you' in that last paragraph generally, more as in the pronoun 'one.' I'm not specifically berating you. I'm glad you exist and I appreciate you sharing your experience and talking with me! It was a rewarding discussion. All the best.

1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/261463/ceo-to-worker-com...

2. https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/14zgfv3/oc...

3. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/themine...

4. https://jacobin.com/2022/07/great-upheaval-railroad-strike-1...

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fi...

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#219

Post by morgante » Fri, Jul 14, 2023, 10:53 PM UTC

hitekker wrote: post #214

morgante wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said you hadn't started a company. I explicitly asked if you had—the opposite of assuming. Nothing in my comment assumed you hadn't. Since you're unwilling to argue in good faith, we can resolve this.

You didn't read his top-level comment about where he said he started a company, so it's actually you who aren't arguing in good faith.

"I automatically become CEO, CTO, etc., by starting my own company" is phrased like a hypothetical, not as a past tense action. I'd expect a founder to say they became CEO.

Re: On Becoming a VP of Engineering

#220

Post by borski » Fri, Jul 14, 2023, 10:57 PM UTC

rgifford wrote: post #218

borski wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I bet leaders get a lot of mileage out of bullshit like playing surreptitious games for social capital, managing risk in decision making by offloading it and/or shifting blame, carefully crafting turn-of-phrase to manipulate people against their own self-interest -- especially in favor of a compensation structure that has senior leadership making 300:1 versus their lowest paid workers. That would be a bad bet. Ther…

> That would be a bad bet. It's a terrible bet. But it's the direction American corporate leadership has overwhelmingly been heading for the past couple decades [1] [2]. I get the sense you've had the good fortune to run and work in smaller startups in The Bay Area that have been unprecedentedly democratic in the scheme of human enterprise. I'm guessing you've also had the good fortune to do that during a 3 decade sp…

> If you're an altruist, prove it. Make less than 200k a year, including stock grants (with appreciation factored in).

I did, with the exception of when the sale happened. For the first three years, I paid myself $30k. For the next two, $50k. For the next one, $70k. For the next one, $90k. Only in the last two years did I pay myself $160k.

When we sold, I gave up over half my RSUs and distributed them across the engineering team. I tried to give them all up (because I was well covered by the cash portion of the sale) but the acquirer wouldn't let me, since they wanted me to be incentivized to stay.

My cofounder gave up none of hers, despite being equal partners with me.

I suspect most of my team would work for me again, whereas the same is definitely not true of my cofounder.

Being cutthroat works short-term, and you may win big. But you get one shot at that, usually, with only a few "star-studded" exceptions (Adam Neumann, for example).

Being "altruistic" (which is not the word I'd use; I'd use "a decent human being who understands how negotiation works and what a BATNA is") works long-term.