

Ask HN: What is it like being CTO? - dotpot

Hello there, 
  in general I'm software engineer (started when I was 7), now I'm 26, currently I resigned from a huge corporation (where I was lead developer and practically sold my soul to them) and I'm going to be a CTO at small startup, we'll develop web based product (kind of social network).<p>I'm a little bit concerned about CTO position, since I've never did anything like that before, I used to have a small team where I was giving tasks for others and etc. Also I know what's agile (scrum) development and will try to do that practice there. Also Im huge news fan and trying to work/suggest/research/play on very top of the technology wave (hot).<p>So my questions is:
- How to make this transition for me as easy as possible ? 
- How can I prepare for it ?
- What I should know and which ares I should learn more ?<p>All suggestions and references will be help for me!
======
tptacek
I've been a "CTO". I've known lots of "CTOs".

First bit of advice: change your title to something else.

Among tech entrepreneurs the term "CTO" carries some of the same connotations
as "architect" does among enterprise developers: people paid extra to do
nothing.

Second: figure out where on the org chart you've just been placed.

Are you the kind of CTO that's intended to do nothing at the top of the
engineering organization? That's what you're expect, right? But more CTOs that
I've known were instead expected to do nothing at the top of the marketing
organization; in particular, to serve as the "spiritual head" of the product
management team. The reason for this: the "CTO" is inherently customer-facing
(impressing customers with pronouncements from the CTO is one of only two
benefits obtainable by your company by naming a "CTO", the other being
"retaining you even after your coworkers decide they want to remove your
commit privileges").

Third: is your company big enough to have a C-anything?

Even if you (smartly) rechristen yourself "director/research" or
"director/product" or "director/engineering", if you're working at a 4 person
company, you can make yourself look dumb --- not just at your company, which
is like all companies likely doomed, but on _your resume_ , where you'll flip
the bozo bit on people evaluating you for their team by allowing yourself to
be labeled with a grandiose title.

The reality is that in small startups, particularly pre-revenue startups, and
_particularly_ when your employers have conceded to you a title ostensibly
meant to communicate some authority, you can probably do anything you want.
Pick one thing, do it extraordinarily well (clue: you are not doing it
extraordinarily well until it hurts to keep doing it that well), and keep
doing it. Things a "CTO" (please don't call yourself that) can do:

* While maintaining a role in the peloton of committers on your team†, become the arbitrator of all tech controversies (not the decider, the _arbitrator_ ).

* While maintaining that committer role, build the engineering team by recruiting talent (note: this only works if you recruit people who turn out to be awesome _for the business_ ) and retaining it.

* Become the marketing face of the company, which can work if your company's audience is nerds (or if you sell direct to other companies, but you don't appear to be doing that).

* Become the head of product management, which means you spend virtually all your time engaged with customers (either directly or by measurement and testing) and almost zero time building.

† _DO NOT GIVE UP COMMIT. Corrollary: you must keep committing, meaningfully,
or it will become easy to take commit from you._

~~~
kls
While I understand the sentiment, the reality is your company will deal with
outside decision makers whether it is venture capital, vendors, or business
partners, adoption a non-executive title when you are indeed the executive
will set you at a distinct disadvantage when you enter a room of executives.
Like it or not, many of these people are highly competitive and judgmental,
they will form an immediate impression based on the fact that you are not a
"C" and dismiss you. Others will follow suit, management is full of the
incompetent and therefore pack mentality is rampant, any variation from the
norm will give them justification to rank you in a submissive position under
them. You then have to deal with all kinds of issues like external influences
trying to undermine your decision making authority with your business
partners. We all like to consider ourselves different and trend setters but
make sure you are prepared to fight the battles for doing so. If you are not,
then don't worry about the title, use it, move on and keep on doing what a
start-up CTO does and that is design and build the technical products of the
company.

~~~
bps4484
I completely agree, except in the case of VCs.

When you're dealing with partners or customers, "bringing the CTO" in to a
conversation sends a message to them that you are serious about the
partnership. You may be the only person on the tech team, or maybe one of 2 or
3, but it doesn't matter, because the partner or customer may not know that.

In the case of VCs, however, one of their first questions will be "who is your
team?". This means that even if you name yourself "CTO, Research Architect,
and Head of Product" they'll see you as "member of the technical team".

~~~
kls
I have dealt with a lot of VC's and my point was that the title CTO does not
help you, but the lack of it can hurt you with certain people, even VC's.
There are very few people that are going to go oh he's a CTO, let me listen
up. But there are a lot of people that will go, he is not an executive let me
take a nap until the executives start talking again. Even VC's are not immune
to this, there are a lot of people that for whatever reason dismiss people
that they view as a lower cast. If anyone is set up to look at people as a
lower cast it is VC's. I know there is a lot of VC bias on this site, but
believe me there are just as many idiot VC's by percentage as their are middle
managers.

------
gabrtv
It sounds like you're a talented engineer who's comfortable working on the
technical side of the house. If that's true, the biggest challenge you're
likely to face is managerial.

Being CTO in an agile environment is about managing the technology roadmap and
making sure the technical team is shipping code as efficiently as possible.

Your first goal should be fostering the creation of lightweight engineering
processes that allow your team to operate without procedural roadblocks.

Resist the temptation to "superman" your way through technical problems that
could be delegated to slower team members. The CTO needs to remain focused on
the big picture.

I'd recommend 2 books:

The E-Myth - which talks about how most small business (especially true of
software companies) are started by "technicians" who must balance that trait
with being an entrepreneur and a manager. I found it helpful for my
transition.

Now, Discovery Your Strengths - discusses how important it is to identify and
play to the strengths in your employees and co-workers -- rather than trying
to fix their weaknesses, which is a losing battle.

Best of luck. With the open and humble attitude you're displaying, I'm sure
you'll do great!

------
irickt
Here are some helpful links: <http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2011/10/vp-engineering-
vs-cto.html>
[http://www.allthingsdistributed.com/2007/07/the_different_ct...](http://www.allthingsdistributed.com/2007/07/the_different_cto_roles.html)
[http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2007/10/cto-vs-vp-
engineerin...](http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2007/10/cto-vs-vp-
engineering.html)

------
achille
There are no titles at a small startup. You are all founders. And being a CTO
of a small startup is absolutely nothing like being a CTO of a midsize
company.

You should focus on what your current at hand skills are and how to get the
company to succeed.

~~~
dotpot
Yes I know, but we're planning to grow fast, hire more and more engineers, so
I need to prepare for that somehow, learn to be more than best.

~~~
tptacek
It really sounds like what you really are is the VP/Engineering (don't call
yourself a VP until you have 40+ people in the company).

People on HN, many of whom have been conditioned to aspire to a "CTO" role,
won't agree with me when I say this, but VP/Eng is probably the better of the
two roles. Unlike CTO, the head of engineering actually controls stuff and
routinely makes key decisions in the company.

