Who has the most authority, EMs, TPMs, Tech Leads, Tech Lead Managers, or ICs at VC backed early stage startups and larger tech companies?
Who (which roles) reporting to whom has the most power to make authority/decisions about day-to-day, vs. technical product architecture vs. business decisions when it comes to early stage venture/YC backed startups (small teams ranging from like 10 employees-hundreds vs. thousands at a larger company)?
I struck up this conversation at the last in-person meetup and got varied answers.
Answer #1: it depends on the company.
Answer #2: management
Answer #3: ICs that revolt against management.
Who has the ultimate authority? Does it depend on the founders and investors (technical CEOs vs non-technical CEOs of major publicly traded FAANGMULA or startup companies makes a difference with the technical/engineering culture right)?
When considering a role (I've been interviewed for senior IC roles, but have a TPM background - Technical Product Manager, which for some folks can translate also into Technical Program Manager) and have been debating back and forth if it makes sense to continue to interview for senior IC roles if I am told that ultimately I don't have 'any' power, but all ex-Meta engineers tell me otherwise. At the same time, many people tell me some companies (like Apple) will privilege management. And yet others, may also tell me that none of that matters, and ultimately all senior ICs/staff engineers/tech leads may tell me is that you won't be able to contribute code as a TPM (you'll be stuck in meetings all day managing people and pointless and endless 1:1s with junior devs on your team a.k.a. babysitting to some and so encourage folks to instead choose being an a senior IC), the reverse are those who tell me TPMs do have interview (even for YC backed AI companies) for product (yes you have to whiteboard and do DSA just like any senior IC would) and actually have a hand in the product (contributing code).
I find myself stuck debating back and forth because ultimately as a past co-startup founder I'm a control freak who probably craves power (natural for management), but I also miss coding a lot (I hated all the business problems with my last company with my non-technical business founder). Any advice on selecting the next role given my dilemma (a need for power/control/authority, but also wants to contribute code)?
Discussion
(2 comments)- 4
3 months agoStaff Eng @ Google, Ex-Meta SWE, Ex-Amazon SDM/SDEI don’t know startups at all, but am trying to understand motivation here. Is it recognition and respect you really want, or is it actually authority? Like you want to be able to tell people what to do or pick your own work without justification because you hold authority, and not have to sell and influence without that authority?
And you’re saying you value this authority more than choosing exactly what job role you’d prefer?
Further, a (T)PM connecting directly with junior devs to ensure clarity, help coach them on the business and product, etc. is pointless?
I have never seen a TPM (with the P being program or product) write any code. I have seen them contribute to design discussions, especially when there’s cross team requirements.
You note that craving power is natural for management. That seems very backwards to me. Management isn’t empowering at all. Maybe if you’re a founder, but generally if you’re effective it’s through partnership and servant leadership, not wielding power.
If you do feel empowered by managing people, and want to code, some companies have a Team Lead Manager (TLM) role that maintains individual deliverables and codes while managing a smaller team. You can then choose to stick with the hybrid role, or move toward exclusive management (org leader) or back toward a senior/staff engineer IC role explicitly.
- 1
3 months agoTech Lead @ Robinhood, Meta, Course HeroThe real answer is that the amount of power you have directly correlates to how much social capital you have accrued.
In other words, if a ton of people like you and are willing to go to bat for you, you will have a ton of power.
When it comes to this topic, it's much better to focus on adding value to others and building up relationships as opposed to trying to figure out the Game of Thrones politics behind the scenes.
I do have some more specific notes though:
- In an early stage startup, the founders will own most of the decision-making as that's their job, especially with 10 people or less.
- In bigger companies, it depends on their culture (which often stems from the founders). For example, Airbnb is more design-driven (i.e. it's common for designers to own decisions and override engineers) as Brian Chesky is a designer. Even within the Meta, the culture was different based on org with Instagram being more design-driven (Kevin Systrom was more of a designer) and Facebook/Messenger being more engineering-driven (engineers often own product decisions there).
- In most top tech companies, engineers can have a lot of influence as that's the reason these companies are so successful (they hire extremely good engineers that can lead/create big initiatives on their own).
At the end of the day, influence needs to be earned. If you want to code and have influence, then become a software engineer who does great work, earns the respect of everyone around them, and is then looked up to for wisdom on core decisions. Pretty much just do all the things Taro teaches. 😉
