January 21, 2009
Why Your Startup Can’t Afford To NOT Hire a CTO
As I mentioned in my last post, one of the many things I do as an entrepreneur is to advise other start up companies. One of the common requests I get as an adviser is the help interview and vet potential CTO candidates. Unfortunately in many cases, the choice to hire a CTO is the worst choice a CEO or management team could make.
But don’t misunderstand me, every technology startup needs the skills embodied by a great CTO, you can’t afford to NOT have a CTO.
So what do I mean, but the skills embodied by a great CTO? Understanding these skills is critical to understanding how to hire the right people to flesh out your technology team.
I recommend that management teams think about the roles of engineering management in three parts:
- Leading, inspiring, and managing the engineering team - Some people think of this as primarily a “people management” skill. We often give the title of “Development Manager” or “Technical Lead” to this role. These are very much “soft skills”, related to making other people successful, happy, and motivated.
- Leading the architecture and technical direction of the product - This is closely related to leading the development team, but it is really a different skill set. These responsibilities are much more focused on hard skills, related to deep technical knowledge. We often call this role “Architect” or “Chief Scientist”.
- Executive technology representation and leadership - Representing the technology team to the rest of the executive team, Board of Directors, company, key outside customers, government or legal parties. This is high end stuff, requiring a level of maturity and preparedness. It’s a combination of soft and hard skills, mostly soft skills. But it should be noted that the more sophisticated versions of these skills are only rarely needed in most start ups.
In very large organizations you will often see these roles divided into different jobs: “Development Manager”, “Architect”, and “Chief Technology Officer”. But in a start up, you can’t realistically afford to pay three six figure salaries to fill these skills. So what are you to do?
Can you live without these skills? NO! You need to find these skills for your start up!
You need these, and hopefully, you can find them in a single person on your team. My recommendation is to start as close to your engineering team as possible and find the person who is closest to embodying these skills. Once you find that person on your team, then cultivate them to fill out their talents to include the rest of these important skills.
I’ll explain how to do this briefly, but before I do that let me quickly address the most common retort I hear to this advice. Often CEOs and BoDs will insist that executive technology representation is the most important skill they need filled. From there, they usually assume they already have a good enough architect but what they really want is “someone to manage those engineers”. This reaction is understandable, most of us feel more comfortable with “people like us”, so executives want to find other executives to hang out with, and they are afraid of those “engineers” and they want someone like them to “take care of it”.
The problem with this view, is that engineers are usually only inspired by other engineers. Yep, that’s the hard truth of it.
If your “engineering leadership” lacks street cred, then you can be certain that they won’t get far with your team.
Air-lifting in an “expert people manager” is one of the most dangerous things you can do. But finding that inspiring engineer on your existing team, and making sure they have or are learning good soft skills, is a sure way to take your engineering team’s productivity to the next level. If you have five engineers on your team, and they’re being productive and getting stuff done, then you can be certain you already have that leader on your team.
If you don’t have that person on your team, then you need to be very careful in how you add that leadership to your team. Look for someone who could slot into your team and sit side by side with your engineers and write the same code that your existing engineers are writing.
Don’t confuse years of leading large teams, with street cred. In fact, the longer that manager has lead large teams, the higher the probability that they’ve lost their street cred.
This is critical! If your “hired gun” hasn’t fired his weapon in years… he won’t make it on your team. Your engineers will eat them alive. Instead, look for an engineering manager that is still comfortable writing code. Maybe you won’t have them writing code in your organization, maybe you will. But if they can still write code, then they will do a great job leading your engineers that must write code.
Another common mistake that executive teams make is to assume that your architect and your engineering manager can’t be the same person.
It’s certainly possible for these roles to be seperate, but it’s much more efficient and cost effective to have a single person who fills both these skills. And I’d argue that a great engineering manager has many of the same qualities of a great architect. In particular, as your team and your mission grows, more and more delegation to talented engineers are required. This means that your CTO will need to be able to unselfishly delegate to the rest of the team, and truly inspire those engineers to run with the vision of the company and build a great product to meet the business needs.
Finding all of these skills in a single person may seem like a daugnting task, especially when you consider that I’ve said that person also needs to be able to code. But these people are out there, and if your company has a great idea, with an exciting market and the opportunity to work on great technology, then you’ll have no problem attracting them to work for you.
Filed by Brad Hefta-Gaub at 9:00 am under Entrepreneurship, Hiring, Leadership
Digg! this story.
Brad - this is a good counterpoint to the prior CTO entry, however I don’t agree with your assessment that “engineers are usually only inspired by other engineers.” Technology isn’t a pissing contest and I’ve seen many failures driven by a CTO who thought they could code - no one respects having someone else grab the wheel from them, even if that person is a better driver. That just isn’t sustainable. If you want to hire a person who can write better code then do that, but don’t hire a CTO just because they could write code.
This is kind of like saying that a pro cycling team won’t respect their coach unless they race alongside them (tell that to Johan Bruyneel or Bjarne Riis, etc.). The fact that these guys were former racers helps with their street cred, but their riders don’t need them in the peloton, they need them driving the vision and strategy.
I definitely agree that the CTO should be qualified to lead the architecture and technical direction of the product, and also to ensure that it is in sync with the business. One key responsibility I would add is that the CTO owns recruiting and hiring for the technical staff.
I love your point that the CTO needs to unselfishly delegate across the team and also that they need to inspire with vision - that is spot on.
DC,
Thanks for your feedback. I think you and I may be closer to agreement that it first appears.
I agree with you that an ego-centric CTO who doesn’t allow his team to create and own their own contribution is a disaster. I wouldn’t want to hire that CTO either.
I agree with your pro cycling analogy. The fact that these great team directors were once quality racers themselves is very similar to what I’m suggestion. And I agree that the idea of Johan Bruyneel jumping on a bike to ride with the team of L’Alpe d’Huez is laughable.
The cycling analogy might be a little stretched, because honestly, age is a very real factor in competitive cycling, unlike engineering. But to extend the analogy slightly further, I’d say that it’s critical that not only the Johan’s of the world have past experience in the saddle, but they also have to have kept themselves FRESH and up to date on the latest skills, technology, and techniques needed by their races. And that is what I’m really arguing for.
I’m not suggesting that the CTO should be writing code for all organizations. In fact in my most recent stint as a CTO I didn’t write any code. It didn’t make sense for me to do that, there were many more important things for me to work on as the CTO, that I was uniquely qualified to do. And there were several members of my team who were far more qualified at writing particular types of code than I was. When I worked at RealNetworks I managed the team of Audio/Video Codec engineers. There’s no way I would have been qualified to do the work they did. But, the fact that I kept myself fresh on the state of the art of technology and kept my chops by continuing to code on the side, was, I believe critical in my success of leading them. Because I was able to speak their language and still be current on the latest vocabulary.
When I was a young engineer, we were coding in C and eventually C++. The “dev managers” (I use this phrase loosely to refer to all types of engineering managers) that only knew COBOL and hadn’t kept fresh, were quickly losing their ability to communicate with the engineering team. This isn’t an issue of a pissing contest, this is an issue of relevance and ability to comprehend and guide the trends that are shaping technology development.
Finally, I’ll offer that my primary audience was the management team hiring for very small extremely capitally efficient organizations. I was at a dinner last night with several local VCs and entrepreneurs, and at least three of the CEOs at the table and another on the guest list that missed the dinner, are in fact writing code for their organizations today. Yep, I’m talking about the CEOs here.
Of course as the CEOs they have many other responsibilities, but the investors in these companies (also at the dinner) were praising their portfolio companies for how lean they were operating their businesses. My observation is that as the cost of development, marketing, and promotion of online businesses come down, you will see more and more organizations where small teams are expect to deliver the bulk of the technology innovation. And in those cases, you probably will see more CTOs who are expect to not only lead, and design, but also code.
I also agree with your point that building the team is a critical role for the CTO. That doesn’t just mean hiring, but recruiting, budgeting, and understanding how to build the technology in the capitally efficient and appropriate way.
I’m glad you agree with my final point, because candidly, I think that’s the most important point I am trying to make. Any successful technology leader will know how to inspire the engineering team to “own” the technology success of the company.
Thanks for commenting.