Why is it so difficult to find a Sr Dev/Lead into VP of Eng role with a Start-up
16 comments
I'm a senior developer (but in web more than mobile). I freelance but often fall into a lead role when I'm part of a team. My thoughts:
1. When I read "competitive salary" or "market rate" in a job description I dismiss it as underpaid. I interpret it as "average salary," and I hope I bring more than average value. To me a competitive salary is one that competes with my freelance income. Tell me the range or I'm moving on.
2. Lots of good programmers are happy as leads but don't aspire to management. If a startup advertised a technical track with the same compensation as the management track, I bet they'd attract a ton of interest. Maybe this is an "architect" role, maybe even CTO (for certain definitions of CTO), but it's pretty rare. My favorite question to ask startups is what they offer career-wise. BigCos have a plan, but I've yet to meet a startup that could answer that question, except a hand-wavy "we're growing". They definitely don't have a tech-track answer.
EDIT: 3. What kind of vacation do you offer? I see 2-3 weeks a lot and it's not interesting. When I read PTO I close the tab. When I read "unlimited vacation" I close the tab. If you can't offer an actually-competitive salary, you could try to compete here.
1. When I read "competitive salary" or "market rate" in a job description I dismiss it as underpaid. I interpret it as "average salary," and I hope I bring more than average value. To me a competitive salary is one that competes with my freelance income. Tell me the range or I'm moving on.
2. Lots of good programmers are happy as leads but don't aspire to management. If a startup advertised a technical track with the same compensation as the management track, I bet they'd attract a ton of interest. Maybe this is an "architect" role, maybe even CTO (for certain definitions of CTO), but it's pretty rare. My favorite question to ask startups is what they offer career-wise. BigCos have a plan, but I've yet to meet a startup that could answer that question, except a hand-wavy "we're growing". They definitely don't have a tech-track answer.
EDIT: 3. What kind of vacation do you offer? I see 2-3 weeks a lot and it's not interesting. When I read PTO I close the tab. When I read "unlimited vacation" I close the tab. If you can't offer an actually-competitive salary, you could try to compete here.
As someone that probably comes close to fitting the bill, here are the reasons I wouldn't apply.
1. You're in NYC, where everyone is currently getting obliterated by snow. For positions like this you should hire in spring or summer if you want to attract a candidate from warmer climates.
2. You want someone who can put in the hours of a 20-something but has the experience of a 40-something. To me, that says the management team wants to hire 2-3 people for the price of one. These expectations simply aren't realistic and anyone brought in will fail in one capacity or the other.
3. The company raised or earned enough to hire you to hire for this postion. So clearly they had someone fulfilling this role but it hasn't worked out. That implies a lot of interpersonal conflict on the management team (all too common in startups).
I think if you start with hiring a VP level and focus on hiring a manager first, you will be better off. Who ever comes in should expect to promote from within and/or hire externally quickly. The management team needs to heavily involved in selling a prospective candidate on the role to alleviate any concerns about the interpersonal conflict.
1. You're in NYC, where everyone is currently getting obliterated by snow. For positions like this you should hire in spring or summer if you want to attract a candidate from warmer climates.
2. You want someone who can put in the hours of a 20-something but has the experience of a 40-something. To me, that says the management team wants to hire 2-3 people for the price of one. These expectations simply aren't realistic and anyone brought in will fail in one capacity or the other.
3. The company raised or earned enough to hire you to hire for this postion. So clearly they had someone fulfilling this role but it hasn't worked out. That implies a lot of interpersonal conflict on the management team (all too common in startups).
I think if you start with hiring a VP level and focus on hiring a manager first, you will be better off. Who ever comes in should expect to promote from within and/or hire externally quickly. The management team needs to heavily involved in selling a prospective candidate on the role to alleviate any concerns about the interpersonal conflict.
Hi dogstraightup,
This is just a suggestion, but try posting contact information here or a link to it so that potential candidates that have read your post could get on your radar.
Maybe they're looking at the wrong targets? I wouldn't in any way call someone with less than 7 years to be VP level - nor would I want them managing staff. That might translate to a beginning Director level at 7 years. But besides that - everyone's frames their opportunity as "Exciting Start-ups" that the phrase is numbing.
My theory is first while it is not rare, I think a majority of developers want to stay developers and not really take on that type of role. Just like Captain Kirk, we've rather be commanding a starship than be an admiral. However, I also think it is rare to find an opportunity like you state. Normally a person would grow into this role in a company. I've never seen some one looking for a VP with zero experience. So the people who would like that position probably aren't looking for it. I would love a role like you mention but never been offered anything like that. So part of your problem is just a search issue. The people are out there but you need to find out how to look for them.
Appreciate the comments. Its actually funny you mention that, as we were initially titling this role "CTO" which resulted in potential candidates who were just too hands-off by that point in their career. I've restructured the role and search to VP of Engineering just because there will be plenty of coding and hands-on work in the beginning which should ease up as the company hires more engineers.
I'm thinking reworking my ideal profile to 8-12 year candidates that are Directors, Leads, or Architects who are still very hands-on. The tough part of the search is the intangibles, like finding someone who still has the motivation and passion of someone in their early/mid 20's.
I'm thinking reworking my ideal profile to 8-12 year candidates that are Directors, Leads, or Architects who are still very hands-on. The tough part of the search is the intangibles, like finding someone who still has the motivation and passion of someone in their early/mid 20's.
Director, lead, and architect are all very different roles. Most directors I know have probably never written a line of code in their lives. Architects are people who stopped coding 5-10 years ago or are consultants that try to sell computer systems. Leads are people with a few years of experience out of college on exactly one project, probably all on one platform and one language who are trying to get out of engineering and into management as fast as possible. But don't worry, all those people would be glad to take your money. You are going to get vastly different outcomes. A director will immediately start spending money and hiring engineering managers. An architect will immediately start spending money on enterprise-y stuff and trying to hire engineers. A lead will be out of their narrow element and no longer be a capable lead. They will be stuck back in beginner land. All will try to fake it until they make it.
You are looking for a top level engineer who can transition to management and then up three to four levels within a couple years. Such a person probably doesn't have any trouble getting their own funding at a percentage a bit higher than 2%.
You are looking for a top level engineer who can transition to management and then up three to four levels within a couple years. Such a person probably doesn't have any trouble getting their own funding at a percentage a bit higher than 2%.
That's interesting. Many articles I've read state that the VP of Engineering tends to be more hands off, technically, than a CTO.
Here's a couple great articles that I've pointed people to on a couple occasions: http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/want-to-know-difference-b...
https://medium.com/engineering-leadership/defining-roles-cto...
Here's a couple great articles that I've pointed people to on a couple occasions: http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/want-to-know-difference-b...
https://medium.com/engineering-leadership/defining-roles-cto...
You see you just cut off your whole market. There is no possible way to find someone in their 20's that meets your specs. Also it is really ageist. Look for what you want not the age.
You've read that wrong (I did, too, the first time). OP was saying "passion of someone in their early/mid 20's." which is just a comparison, not an age requirement.
Thx...thats correct.
If the position is in NYC then your competitive salary probably isn't as competitive as you think. The rate would have to be very high for me to consider moving to NYC.
"I'm guessing most Engineers by that level are so well-taken care of or dedicated to their employers that they are unwilling to leave."
Senior engineers leave their jobs all the time, but to get them to do so you have to offer them at least one of: more interesting work, more money (adjusted for local cost of living), or better working conditions (e.g., private offices for people who prefer them).
And I'd agree with the commenters who said that people who are good developers are not necessarily interested in being managers, and especially not VPs, who are managers of managers of managers, and thus pretty far away from the programming action. After being a director for many years, I decided to go back to being a developer because it made me much happier to write code, not sit in meetings and deal with management issues (hiring, layoffs, performance reviews, fighting for staff raises, employees not getting along with each other, etc.).
Also, there's no guarantee that a good developer would even make a good manager - it requires a whole different set of skills that include empathy, politics and diplomacy. Finding someone who has both programming and management skills would be exceedingly difficult. Better to hire the developer you need now, and if they show aptitude and interest in management, promote them. If not, hire a competent manager to oversee the growing department.
Senior engineers leave their jobs all the time, but to get them to do so you have to offer them at least one of: more interesting work, more money (adjusted for local cost of living), or better working conditions (e.g., private offices for people who prefer them).
And I'd agree with the commenters who said that people who are good developers are not necessarily interested in being managers, and especially not VPs, who are managers of managers of managers, and thus pretty far away from the programming action. After being a director for many years, I decided to go back to being a developer because it made me much happier to write code, not sit in meetings and deal with management issues (hiring, layoffs, performance reviews, fighting for staff raises, employees not getting along with each other, etc.).
Also, there's no guarantee that a good developer would even make a good manager - it requires a whole different set of skills that include empathy, politics and diplomacy. Finding someone who has both programming and management skills would be exceedingly difficult. Better to hire the developer you need now, and if they show aptitude and interest in management, promote them. If not, hire a competent manager to oversee the growing department.
It appears that I incorrectly assumed most Senior Engineers will eventually become/strive to be VPs of Eng or IT Directors.
Greenyoda, if you don't mind me asking, how many years were you a director before switching back to being a developer? Also, did you find it was a pretty seamless transition back to a hands-on coding, or were you playing catch up for a bit? Thx.
Greenyoda, if you don't mind me asking, how many years were you a director before switching back to being a developer? Also, did you find it was a pretty seamless transition back to a hands-on coding, or were you playing catch up for a bit? Thx.
You definitely made an incorrect assumption. I have been at various levels of management and also continued to be very hands on in the code bases. This included start up's and very large (Fortune 50, on the lower end of the digits) companies.
I believe I was a very successful Director and VP level manager. However, I realized a few things that made me switch back.
1) Engineers, particularly me, don't like to manage. Most of us get into it for the money or because it's some sort of natural career progression. But generally it means more of the things we don't like doing. Meetings, personnel issues, hiring, firing, and not coding. Some say that management at that level get more say in the product direction or in other business matters and I have not found that to be true. Engineers get just the same amount, if not more, say in product than any manager. If you happen to be a "hands-on" VP, you get to do all of those things you don't enjoy doing from 10-4 and then code on the product all night. That can be quite unpleasant.
2) "Natural Career Progression" is a myth. If we're talking about purely financial benchmarks, as an engineer and a consultant I make more than just about every manager I know. And certainly quite a bit more than I made as a VP, including equity. If we are talking about career "prestige" or "respect", as an engineer I get asked to speak at more conferences, write more articles, and get on the phone with more CEO's than I ever did as a manager.
3) Quality of life and happiness. I have spent the better part of my entire life learning how to make computers do what a company needs them to in order to make money on their product idea. I think a lot of VP's and Director's absolutely love their job, but I felt unproductive and constantly inefficient. I wasn't making a computer do what the company needed it to do to make money on a product. I was trying to get engineers to work, I was settling disputes between engineers and other engineers, engineers and other managers, managers and product schedules, product schedules and financing, upper management and partners, the list goes on and on. This did not make me happy. I didn't sign up in this business to be the referee. I want to be the best engineer, so I strive to become the very best at that.
Now to answer your specific questions. I was a director or VP level for 7 years. I walked out of my last job as a VP and walked into a consulting role the following day making 20% more. The transition was absolutely seamless and I did not play catch up. However, this may be more of a testament to my own learning and retention. Others may take longer.
I believe I was a very successful Director and VP level manager. However, I realized a few things that made me switch back.
1) Engineers, particularly me, don't like to manage. Most of us get into it for the money or because it's some sort of natural career progression. But generally it means more of the things we don't like doing. Meetings, personnel issues, hiring, firing, and not coding. Some say that management at that level get more say in the product direction or in other business matters and I have not found that to be true. Engineers get just the same amount, if not more, say in product than any manager. If you happen to be a "hands-on" VP, you get to do all of those things you don't enjoy doing from 10-4 and then code on the product all night. That can be quite unpleasant.
2) "Natural Career Progression" is a myth. If we're talking about purely financial benchmarks, as an engineer and a consultant I make more than just about every manager I know. And certainly quite a bit more than I made as a VP, including equity. If we are talking about career "prestige" or "respect", as an engineer I get asked to speak at more conferences, write more articles, and get on the phone with more CEO's than I ever did as a manager.
3) Quality of life and happiness. I have spent the better part of my entire life learning how to make computers do what a company needs them to in order to make money on their product idea. I think a lot of VP's and Director's absolutely love their job, but I felt unproductive and constantly inefficient. I wasn't making a computer do what the company needed it to do to make money on a product. I was trying to get engineers to work, I was settling disputes between engineers and other engineers, engineers and other managers, managers and product schedules, product schedules and financing, upper management and partners, the list goes on and on. This did not make me happy. I didn't sign up in this business to be the referee. I want to be the best engineer, so I strive to become the very best at that.
Now to answer your specific questions. I was a director or VP level for 7 years. I walked out of my last job as a VP and walked into a consulting role the following day making 20% more. The transition was absolutely seamless and I did not play catch up. However, this may be more of a testament to my own learning and retention. Others may take longer.
About 8 or 9 years. Getting back into coding wasn't hard, since I'd been doing some coding (mostly fighting fires so my team could concentrate on their main projects) while I was in management.
Also, going into management wasn't really my idea - I was approached by upper management and accepted the promotion without really knowing what I was getting into. (I've heard the same story many times from other developers.)
Also, going into management wasn't really my idea - I was approached by upper management and accepted the promotion without really knowing what I was getting into. (I've heard the same story many times from other developers.)
I know most people on here will be quick to bad mouth recruiters but I'm curious what people's thoughts are on this. One would think this is a relatively attractive position (Chance to manage all the technical architecture/responsibilities, build out your own engineering team, equity, competitive salary, cool product, etc.) Are 4-7 year iOS Devs/Mobile Architects looking to make a career transition that rare?
I'm guessing most Engineers by that level are so well-taken care of or dedicated to their employers that they are unwilling to leave. It also seems the start-up space is quite saturated at this point and the "Exciting Start-up" Opportunity isn't quite as sexy as it was even a few years ago.