Live data from Hacker News

Becoming A Boss

avc.com

11–19 of 19 posts

Re: Becoming A Boss

#11
This is in my admittedly cynical view a false dichotomy posed generally by investors seeking to justify pushing out founders in favor of their handpicked person. I see this more from old school VCs than from the newer breed. Keep in mind the most successful tech companies (Microsoft, Google, Facebook) had founders who stayed in control all the way through. A fact that is recognized by Andreesen Horowitz for example.

The truth is that management is like any other skill - it's learnable and teachable. Founders who do that and can see through the old school VC shibboleths stay in control of their destiny.

Re: Becoming A Boss

#12
post #3

One of the most difficult things (for me) has been finding the appropriate balance (which changes depending on the context) between doing things myself, and delegating them to others.

Combine cost benefit analysis, risk analysis, and comparative advantage concepts.

What is the cost to you doing it? What is the cost of you delegating? What are the risks? What is the opportunity cost? (The opportunity cost is not your sleep, or your time away from your business. The opportunity cost is you having to delegate something else. The business will expand to the time you let it, anyway.)

As a boss, your goal is to become a multiplier. What can the team get done with your guidance as opposed to what it could get done alone, with you as a line worker?

But when all else fails, err on the side of delegation, because your first instinct will be to do it yourself. :)

Re: Becoming A Boss

#13
This is the reason I resigned from a mgmt position. I was delegating all the interesting work (learning experiences). The team was too big for me to be hands on. If you can keep the team small you can still be the "manager/boss/lead". Hiring the right people can make it feel less bossy. I would do it again with a smaller group.

Re: Becoming A Boss

#14
I gave a talk on this very topic a few months ago. Here are the slides: http://www.slideshare.net/priestc/the-kanye-quotient

Basically, some people have a knack for managing, others have a knack for creating. Put a creator in a management position, and they will suck. Put a manager in a creator position, and they will suck. The trick is to put the right people in the right roles, and to make sure you're hiring both types of people. Managers prefer hiring other manager-type people, and creators prefer hiring other creator-type people. Often you have companies that are either heavy manager based (where nothing gets done), or are highly creator based (where the office environment is miserable due to conflicts and ego). Both companies are bound to fail.

Re: Becoming A Boss

#15
I have been wondering about option 1 (creator-type founder hires manager/CEO for managerial tasks, keeps focusing on creating) for quite some time.

Google is a great example where Larry Page and Sergey Brin interviewed Eric Schmidt and hired him as their CEO. Worked great for 10 years, and their relationship seems to keep working today.

Are there more examples (also unsuccessful ones)? I'm actually not aware of any. It seems much more common that one of the co-founders becomes a full-time manager (or that they are kicked out of their own company).

Re: Becoming A Boss

#16

I have been wondering about option 1 (creator-type founder hires manager/CEO for managerial tasks, keeps focusing on creating) for quite some time. Google is a great example where Larry Page and Sergey Brin interviewed Eric Schmidt and hired him as their CEO. Worked great for 10 years, and their relationship seems to keep working today. Are there more examples (also unsuccessful ones)? I'm actually not aware of any.…

First example that comes to mind (although not a tech company) is TechCrunch with Arrington running the editorial side and hiring a CEO. That seemed to work well for a while.

Re: Becoming A Boss

#17
IMHO, maker/manager boundary is quickly disappearing. In the past, makers built systems from predictable but brittle parts, while managers used less predictable but more adaptable humans. Now most engineers have to deal with distributed and adaptive systems while managers have to use and understand a lot of technical systems, so both makers and managers are exposed to very similar challenges.

Re: Becoming A Boss

#18
Is manager/maker really the only way to scale things? Instead of the maker founder becoming a manager, how about the maker founder getting "assistants". For the management parts, it could be similar to a traditional secretarial role, and for the making part, it would be along the lines of master and apprentice.

Apart from these, there are certainly other ways to organize, if efficiency is not the key thing. If the bottleneck is "try out lots of cool things, and see which one sticks", such as a research department, then it could be organized more like a cooperative with individual makers. There would probably need to be some selection of things to include in a next release if it is a manufactured product, but on the web, that might not even be necessary. Sure, integration would be a mess, but in some cases, that is not so important.

Re: Becoming A Boss

#19

This is in my admittedly cynical view a false dichotomy posed generally by investors seeking to justify pushing out founders in favor of their handpicked person. I see this more from old school VCs than from the newer breed. Keep in mind the most successful tech companies (Microsoft, Google, Facebook) had founders who stayed in control all the way through. A fact that is recognized by Andreesen Horowitz for example.…

i think that is exactly what i wrote.

"I have come to believe that most people can be talented at managing people if they want to be."

you can hate on me and hate on VCs all you want. that's fine. but please don't misrepresent what i wrote

Post reply on HN