5 ms·

> I don’t particularly enjoy building orgs and figuring out people stuff. Engineering management involves navigating interpersonal dynamics, performance reviews

by sa-code 11mo ago

> I don’t particularly enjoy building orgs and figuring out people stuff. Engineering management involves navigating interpersonal dynamics, performance reviews, and organizational design. These are crucial functions, but they’re not where my strengths lie. This bit got me. It's a direct quote from the linked post for those who haven't read it

lqstuart 11mo ago
Hahaha I would have led with this honestly. I’m the chief legal officer but at the end of the day I’m just like bruh, chill, who gives a shit
dbbk 11mo ago
Then why are you the CTO!! Dude just wants to be a staff engineer
- Lio 11mo ago
  Maybe. If he’s a technical founder though what other position would you hold?
  - senorrib 11mo ago
    Staff engineer. Founders don’t necessarily need to hold CXO titles to work in the startups they founded.
    - SJMG 11mo ago
      A few examples that spring to mind, Steve Wozniak and Mitchell Hashimoto
      - doctorleff 11mo ago
        I recall James Goodnight of SAS coding while being a CEO. As per https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhigh/2014/05/12/an-interview-with-the-godfather-of-data-analytics-sass-jim-goodnight/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhigh/2014/05/12/an-intervi..., he still programs from time to time but doesn't have a specific part in development. In looking at the articles to refresh my memory, it is clear he is one of the good CEO's
        eitally 11mo ago
        I don't think that's the model we should be looking at here. I'd add Stephen Wolfram to the very short list of similar technical CEOs.
        obiefernandez 11mo ago
        Tobi Luetke at Shopify too
      - tanjtanjtanj 11mo ago
        Wasn't Mitchell Hashimoto only a non-CxO for a handful of months between stepping down and selling the company?
        SJMG 11mo ago
        I'm not that familiar with his employment history; you could be right. Either way, he'd still be an example. If you have longer term ones, I'm sure it would add to the discussion
  - noleary 11mo ago
    It's not that uncommon to keep the "CTO" title and not be the primary manager of the engineering organization. There are all kinds of things you can do with the org chart. If I recall correctly, Clickhouse works this way. The company's cofounders comprise three people [1]: * Aaron, a sales-oriented CEO from Elastic and Salesforce * Alexey, the original Clickhouse developer, as CTO * Yury, an experienced engineering executive from Google/Netflix as "President" An excerpt from the launch announcement [2]: > While negotiations were still ongoing, Katz decided they needed a third co-founder. “I kept thinking, if I could get a third co-founder to run product and engineering, and if I could find someone with the same level of experience building distributed systems on open-source that I have on go-to-market, it could be a really compelling combination,” Katz says. --- --- [1] https://clickhouse.com/company/our-story https://clickhouse.com/company/our-story [2] https://www.indexventures.com/perspectives/the-fast-and-the-furious-how-clickhouse-the-worlds-fastest-open-source-database-is-creating-the-first-real-time-data-warehouse/ https://www.indexventures.com/perspectives/the-fast-and-the-...
- libraryofbabel 11mo ago
  He mentions he has nobody reporting to him. That sounds like he’s really a staff engineer with a vanity CTO title, plus a lot of sway in strategic decision making. It’s not a guaranteed recipe for disaster, but it depends critically on his relationship with whoever actually manages the engineering org. If they don’t pull in the same direction, things go south very quickly and you end up with a little civil war. Either way it’s a red flag and I wouldn’t work there. Another red flag is that he wrote this blog post at all. Given how clearly negative the reaction to it was going to be, it’s a strong signal he doesn’t really think things through and has a ego wrapped up in his “coding” prowess and ability to circumvent process. People mention Woz as an example of a technical co-founder in a non-management role, but he is a humble guy and wouldn’t brag like this.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
- cantor_S_drug 11mo ago
  How big is assembled in terms of headcount? That should resolve most of the questions we are raising.
  - boulos 11mo ago
    LinkedIn suggests "50-200". 54 work in San Francisco, and 154 people are associated with it. So probably closer to 150, but that includes a lot of Sales and Marketing related roles. Maybe the "engineering" org is ~100 or just under that.
- rgbrgb 11mo ago
  FWIW Carmack did this as CTO of Oculus [0]. Another configuration I've seen is for the CTO to have like 1 direct (VP Eng) who does actual eng managing. You could argue it's a staff engineer role but I've never seen staff engineers actually get much say over org direction/structure or be empowered to break gridlock like this. [0]: https://www.uploadvr.com/john-carmacks-app-reviews-series/ https://www.uploadvr.com/john-carmacks-app-reviews-series/
eitally 11mo ago
This can work, imho, IFF the organization has both a CTO and CIO (or someone else tasked with managing the org). I've seen lots of places where the CTO is purely the technical visionary/advisor/final decision maker, and doesn't directly manage the technical organization. This scenario is far more common outside of the tech industry, where you usually have a CIO running the IT cost center, and a CTO making decisions about technology adoption strategy.
- ghaff 11mo ago
  CTO, CIO, and the head of engineering (the latter of which can often be split among different groups) are often very distinct things, especially at larger companies. And, yes, while the CTO probably has a seat at the table for technology direction is often primarily a public technology face of the company as opposed to someone involved in a lot of hands-on day to day technology implementation.
  - LgWoodenBadger 11mo ago
    “Probably has a seat at the table for technology direction” is a wild take to me. So much so that I can’t even formulate a response other than “what…?!”
    - ghaff 11mo ago
      I'm not sure what you find confusing. Someone can have an advisory and essentially technology evangelist role without necessarily being the ultimate decision maker. (And, at a larger company, a variety of folks--including the board--will ultimately make final consequential decisions.)
      - acron0 11mo ago
        How can the Chief Technical Officer not be the one chiefly responsible for technology decisions?
        11mo ago
wonderwonder 11mo ago
Also: "I currently manage no direct reports and ship a lot of code." So essentially he is just a staff engineer with a fancy title
- tech_tuna 11mo ago
  Also, probably an asshole
santoshalper 11mo ago
Dude is a staff engineer, not a CTO.
johnjwang 11mo ago
(Author here) I stand by this comment and I think it’s really important for engineers to recognize that everyone has different places where they gain and lose energy. My team and I have been extremely lucky in hiring Joe, our excellent head of engineering, and an extremely strong set of engineering managers. Not to mention incredibly strong product and user experience management. I think it’s pretty obvious that my approach wouldn’t work if I didn’t have this bench of talented managers, but because I do it affords me the luxury to spend time doing things that I love and which are also valuable to the company. In general, I wrote this article because I think that the classical approach to engineering management isn’t the only path you need to take, and a lot depends on the team you work with (thankfully we have a team that complements each other really well).
- Kudos 11mo ago
  You mention in the article you have no direct reports. Who does engineering report into in that case?
- godzillabrennus 11mo ago
  I'm glad you are comfortable coming forward and for sharing your thoughts. Not to pile on with the others here but you may go fast alone but you go far together when you build the right team. Being an individual contributor CTO is not being a CTO for a business that succeeds at scale. Don't stop doing what you love if you feel that's more important but it's probably best to step back from being a CTO and hire someone to manage that role so you can code if you don't want to do the job.
- chipsrafferty 11mo ago
  It sounds like you are CTO in title only
333c 11mo ago
I would say that's the job of a CTO
tech_tuna 11mo ago
I worked at company where the VP of engineering regularly stated that he "hated managing people". This is also the same guy who literally deleted the main production database because he was testing something out.

by sa-code 11mo ago

lqstuart 11mo ago

Hahaha I would have led with this honestly. I’m the chief legal officer but at the end of the day I’m just like bruh, chill, who gives a shit

dbbk 11mo ago

Then why are you the CTO!! Dude just wants to be a staff engineer

Lio 11mo ago
Maybe. If he’s a technical founder though what other position would you hold?
- senorrib 11mo ago
  Staff engineer. Founders don’t necessarily need to hold CXO titles to work in the startups they founded.
  - SJMG 11mo ago
    A few examples that spring to mind, Steve Wozniak and Mitchell Hashimoto
    - doctorleff 11mo ago
      I recall James Goodnight of SAS coding while being a CEO. As per https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhigh/2014/05/12/an-interview-with-the-godfather-of-data-analytics-sass-jim-goodnight/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhigh/2014/05/12/an-intervi..., he still programs from time to time but doesn't have a specific part in development. In looking at the articles to refresh my memory, it is clear he is one of the good CEO's
      - eitally 11mo ago
        I don't think that's the model we should be looking at here. I'd add Stephen Wolfram to the very short list of similar technical CEOs.
        obiefernandez 11mo ago
        Tobi Luetke at Shopify too
    - tanjtanjtanj 11mo ago
      Wasn't Mitchell Hashimoto only a non-CxO for a handful of months between stepping down and selling the company?
      - SJMG 11mo ago
        I'm not that familiar with his employment history; you could be right. Either way, he'd still be an example. If you have longer term ones, I'm sure it would add to the discussion
- noleary 11mo ago
  It's not that uncommon to keep the "CTO" title and not be the primary manager of the engineering organization. There are all kinds of things you can do with the org chart. If I recall correctly, Clickhouse works this way. The company's cofounders comprise three people [1]: * Aaron, a sales-oriented CEO from Elastic and Salesforce * Alexey, the original Clickhouse developer, as CTO * Yury, an experienced engineering executive from Google/Netflix as "President" An excerpt from the launch announcement [2]: > While negotiations were still ongoing, Katz decided they needed a third co-founder. “I kept thinking, if I could get a third co-founder to run product and engineering, and if I could find someone with the same level of experience building distributed systems on open-source that I have on go-to-market, it could be a really compelling combination,” Katz says. --- --- [1] https://clickhouse.com/company/our-story https://clickhouse.com/company/our-story [2] https://www.indexventures.com/perspectives/the-fast-and-the-furious-how-clickhouse-the-worlds-fastest-open-source-database-is-creating-the-first-real-time-data-warehouse/ https://www.indexventures.com/perspectives/the-fast-and-the-...
libraryofbabel 11mo ago
He mentions he has nobody reporting to him. That sounds like he’s really a staff engineer with a vanity CTO title, plus a lot of sway in strategic decision making. It’s not a guaranteed recipe for disaster, but it depends critically on his relationship with whoever actually manages the engineering org. If they don’t pull in the same direction, things go south very quickly and you end up with a little civil war. Either way it’s a red flag and I wouldn’t work there. Another red flag is that he wrote this blog post at all. Given how clearly negative the reaction to it was going to be, it’s a strong signal he doesn’t really think things through and has a ego wrapped up in his “coding” prowess and ability to circumvent process. People mention Woz as an example of a technical co-founder in a non-management role, but he is a humble guy and wouldn’t brag like this.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
cantor_S_drug 11mo ago
How big is assembled in terms of headcount? That should resolve most of the questions we are raising.
- boulos 11mo ago
  LinkedIn suggests "50-200". 54 work in San Francisco, and 154 people are associated with it. So probably closer to 150, but that includes a lot of Sales and Marketing related roles. Maybe the "engineering" org is ~100 or just under that.
rgbrgb 11mo ago
FWIW Carmack did this as CTO of Oculus [0]. Another configuration I've seen is for the CTO to have like 1 direct (VP Eng) who does actual eng managing. You could argue it's a staff engineer role but I've never seen staff engineers actually get much say over org direction/structure or be empowered to break gridlock like this. [0]: https://www.uploadvr.com/john-carmacks-app-reviews-series/ https://www.uploadvr.com/john-carmacks-app-reviews-series/

eitally 11mo ago

This can work, imho, IFF the organization has both a CTO and CIO (or someone else tasked with managing the org). I've seen lots of places where the CTO is purely the technical visionary/advisor/final decision maker, and doesn't directly manage the technical organization. This scenario is far more common outside of the tech industry, where you usually have a CIO running the IT cost center, and a CTO making decisions about technology adoption strategy.

ghaff 11mo ago
CTO, CIO, and the head of engineering (the latter of which can often be split among different groups) are often very distinct things, especially at larger companies. And, yes, while the CTO probably has a seat at the table for technology direction is often primarily a public technology face of the company as opposed to someone involved in a lot of hands-on day to day technology implementation.
- LgWoodenBadger 11mo ago
  “Probably has a seat at the table for technology direction” is a wild take to me. So much so that I can’t even formulate a response other than “what…?!”
  - ghaff 11mo ago
    I'm not sure what you find confusing. Someone can have an advisory and essentially technology evangelist role without necessarily being the ultimate decision maker. (And, at a larger company, a variety of folks--including the board--will ultimately make final consequential decisions.)
    - acron0 11mo ago
      How can the Chief Technical Officer not be the one chiefly responsible for technology decisions?
      - 11mo ago

wonderwonder 11mo ago

Also: "I currently manage no direct reports and ship a lot of code." So essentially he is just a staff engineer with a fancy title

tech_tuna 11mo ago
Also, probably an asshole

santoshalper 11mo ago

Dude is a staff engineer, not a CTO.

johnjwang 11mo ago

(Author here) I stand by this comment and I think it’s really important for engineers to recognize that everyone has different places where they gain and lose energy. My team and I have been extremely lucky in hiring Joe, our excellent head of engineering, and an extremely strong set of engineering managers. Not to mention incredibly strong product and user experience management. I think it’s pretty obvious that my approach wouldn’t work if I didn’t have this bench of talented managers, but because I do it affords me the luxury to spend time doing things that I love and which are also valuable to the company. In general, I wrote this article because I think that the classical approach to engineering management isn’t the only path you need to take, and a lot depends on the team you work with (thankfully we have a team that complements each other really well).

Kudos 11mo ago
You mention in the article you have no direct reports. Who does engineering report into in that case?
godzillabrennus 11mo ago
I'm glad you are comfortable coming forward and for sharing your thoughts. Not to pile on with the others here but you may go fast alone but you go far together when you build the right team. Being an individual contributor CTO is not being a CTO for a business that succeeds at scale. Don't stop doing what you love if you feel that's more important but it's probably best to step back from being a CTO and hire someone to manage that role so you can code if you don't want to do the job.
chipsrafferty 11mo ago
It sounds like you are CTO in title only

333c 11mo ago

I would say that's the job of a CTO

tech_tuna 11mo ago

I worked at company where the VP of engineering regularly stated that he "hated managing people". This is also the same guy who literally deleted the main production database because he was testing something out.