
Ask HN: CTO and Product Engineering Manager - justx
Note: I'm posting this with an anonymous identity<p>I'm currently the CTO of a small (7 empl) saas company in spain. We are three founders and an advisor who has little shares. After 3 years of working hard, we finally have a product that people likes and we have had some sales (about 100K soft+services). We are on the way to receive some seed investment, and the advisor told us to get some loans from the government. Until here, everything is fine, after 3 years of scarcity and courange, we will finally have some resources that will help us to bring our software to a next level and expand its adoption.<p>The advisor told us about creating and organization chart, to see how we will spend the money. And he proposes the figure of a "product engineering manager", someone responsible of some R+D, vintage chart, and pilot test. That job was made by me until now, basically because after some years I got some expertise on the market, and I tried to push some cool "intelligent" features, but due to the small resources, we focused on minimum viable product.<p>After being told that I would no longer hold this position/job, the advisor proposed someone younger (we are all 28), but who has been working for 3 years in a very similar companies in the U.S. He had an outsourced development team of 30, and they got a nice piece of software. They focused on final client (12 clients), we got a sales channel (35 partners) and (70 final clients) and the amount of items represented in the software was about the same (150). He was supossed to have a bigger salary also.<p>I've said that now we lack of someone to take care of the operations, someone to help the sales channel to setup projects and deploy our software (our software needs some piece of hardware) for really going on volume. But the advisor (and also the CEO-sales manager) told me that what we have to do is to focus more on the R+D on the product.<p>I'm feeling displaced from the position I think I could bring to the next step with some extra resources, and I supose I will end giving support to the sales channel, while someone else plays around with some R+D unit that I've been trying to push for the last year. So, I expressed some doubts on this decisition, and I got a confrontation with the rest of my board (founders and advisor). I even being told by the advisor that if someone gets an advisor he cannot refuse their advices. He added that he is very angry at me, and that I'm putting sticks on the wheels.<p>So, to wrap it all, I face a decistion, wether I fight for the position I think I must work in, or I got displace for the best of the company.<p>Ah, just forgot to tell one thing, which is supposed to be irrelevant the supposed rockstar to be hired as product engineering manager is the son of the advisor, with whom we have some common friends that told me that he is desperate to come back to spain.<p>So, what I have to do?<p>Thanks!
======
trevelyan
One or more people in the company want to replace you. These people are
framing the decision as "you need to step aside for the good of the company"
in order to play to your sense of teamwork and loyalty, while trying to
present the decision as a fait accompli. The fact that their preference
involves nepotism and a closed hiring process makes it unlikely this is really
about getting the best person for your job, especially if they are non-
technical people hiring for a technical role.

This may be a response to real or perceived issues with your management and
while you should try to solve these, the practical problem is that once your
team accedes to any suggested change everyone will be complicit in wanting the
new hire to succeed. This makes it unlikely that he or the new corporate
structure will be identified as a problem even if it makes things worse. And
even if it becomes obvious your replacement needs to be fired he'll have a
honeymoon period of at least 6-8 months before organizational change will be
possible since it will take time for a consensus to build against his father
that this guy has had a fair shake. So in a worst case situation you should
expect to be Cassandra: people aren't going to want to hear any complaints you
might make about the direction of the company or competence of technical
execution because they'll interpret your warnings as negativity or envy or
malice.

I think you should stand up for yourself and your investment in the company.
One of the reasons to start a company is to have the flexibility to work on
the things you want to. But at a minimum, you should absolutely be checking
references and conducting your own evaluation of this guy so that you have an
informed opinion on whether he is going to work out. Because while it's
possible he is exactly what your company needs, it's more likely that YOU are
exactly what your company needs. And if your cofounders are not technical, I'd
put money on the latter.

------
otoburb
Some things are a bit confusing, and may need more clarity in order to help
reason about the situation:

1) The advisor, who has "little shares", is also the "CEO-sales manager"? Does
this mean that the advisor _is_ the CEO, or that he's the one responsible for
bringing in the $100K (in sales + services revenue)?

2) You are currently the CTO, mainly focused on a lot of the R&D, prototyping
and product development. It seems that the advisor is proposing that a new
position be created ("Product Engineering Manager"), yet you make no mention
of whether you still retain the CTO title. If you're upset that you'll be
delegating the important product development responsibilities to somebody
else, yet you still keep your title, then perhaps this isn't a bad thing as
you would hopefully be ramping up a larger technical team for you to (learn
to?) manage.

3) It's not a problem to express doubts about a decision. What's more
important is that your founders and advisor sit down and discuss the issues
one by one. If your advisor is angry with you, he should try to explain why.

4) What is the equity agreement that you have? I can't help but feel that this
would have an impact on the discussions, and will be an important factor in
deciding whether to part ways (hopefully with vested equity still intact).

5) "Fight for the position I think I must work in" - is that as the PEM, or as
CTO?

~~~
justx
Sorry, you're right, some thinks may not to be clear:

1) the CEO-Sales manager is one of the founders (he is doing both functions).

2) the other founder is the product development manager and lead developer,
and the advisor is proposing the new position to report directly to the CEO.
The new role of the CTO will be to take care of supporting the sales, channel,
hardware connectivity and architecture.

4) 95% is own equally by the founders, the advisor has the rest (5%).

5) Fight for hiring someone to take care of supporting the channel and let me
act as a CTO in charge of determing product roadmap and funcionalities.

Thanks!

------
pxtreme75
It is obvious that you need to think clear and not make this an emotional
drama. We all, at some point, believe we are the perfect match for a job and
we resist change. Also, at this stage of a company is really difficult to
decide if you need more R&D or more sales persons. The chances are you need
both but you could also go on with none...

That said, the fact that the person you are about to hire is the son of the
adviser makes me wonder about his real motives. Also, it is clearly
unproductive to impose a new technical member to your team without the CTOs
permission.

What I would do would be to scrutinize the ability of your new candidate. Make
clear that you are still the CTO. If you are not satisfied with him, just come
back with a stronger argument. Otherwise, embrace him...

------
sixtypoundhound
This is painfully simple.

You and your friends own 95% of the company, with what sounds like little or
no outside investment.

Any advisor with 5% of the company who proceeded to displace a founder with a
member of his own family should be immediately dismissed, with predjudice (eg.
strip him of his shares and any board voice, if legally possible).

He is a hired hand, with minimal skin in the game. Unless the family member is
supremely overqualified (eg. started a company of his own and had a successful
exit), this is self dealing of the worst sort. The optics alone merit
dismissal - speaking as someone who has consulted at the highest levels of
major companies, a good advisor should avoid the mere appearance of self-
dealing, let alone actively promote it's occurance.

------
NonEUCitizen
1\. "told by the advisor that if someone gets an advisor he cannot refuse
their advices"

This is ridiculous. An advisor gives advice and does not dicatate. You can
always fire an advisor (but don't do so out of personal grudge).

2\. "supposed rockstar to be hired as product engineering manager is the son
of the advisor"

In Silicon Valley (and general US business practice), this is called "conflict
of interest" and is generally considered unethical. He should have "recused"
himself from this topic.

If I were to fire the advisor, it'd be for #2 and not necessarily for #1 (for
#1, I'd just have a good laugh and perhaps tell him that the era of Franco is
over).

3\. "I got a confrontation with the rest of my board (founders and advisor)"

However, you might ask why the other founders (not the advisor) think it's a
good idea.

¡Suerte!

