God complex of executive recruiters
Exec recruiters focus on how many direct reports the candidate has managed. As a guy who has managed ~50 engineers, the number doesn't matter (except in big company political disputes). The key issue that is relevant is if a candidate has managed managers ('cos thats when people learn how to delegate).
Recruiters don't really care about the candidate's tech chops. To be fair, they are not capable of evaluating people from that angle. "Code talks" and if a VP Engg can't code, don't think the company can succeed. Knowing scrum process is good, but process is not the output of a company (product is).
Recruiters also represent multiple clients at the same time, so there is an incentive mismatch. The focus is on maximizing commission, not getting the founders to talk to the right candidates.
Seems like the exec recruiting business is stuck in the country club mindset and outdated notions. Wish AngelList does a better job w/ handling exec positions.
I m using a temp HN a/c, since I am in the middle of interviewing & dont want to offend anyone.
The perm fee is typically paid w/ guarantees. Usually that the candidate stays for 6 months to a year. So you see the recruiter is looking for someone that has dealt with the politics of a large organization, and can be diplomatic and not get himself fired before the refundable portion of the perm fee seasons.
Code, that's the company's problem... The recruiter doesn't care if the guy can actually do the job, they are only matching experience to requirements, and then coaching the CEO on who historically sticks around to take more of the investors $$$..
The problem is not with the recruiters... its with CEO/Founders etc that have no experience hiring people and who aren't good managers to begin with. The best coder may not be the best VP's of engineering.
If you're trying to get a VP job without VP experience well what makes you ready for such a position? What have you done to be entrusted with the heart of a company? You have to show someone that... or make it easy for them to say yes... (that means lower your salary requirements, take more on the backend).. any who
Hope that helps..
My point is that a VPE has to be good a managing/politics/delegation and also be technical. The cost of developing software has gone down a lot = smaller teams, more technical folks. Recruiters havent realized this. A company like WhatsApp has ~50 people and was valued at $ 19 billion.
At a personal level, I have been a big company manager with many years experience managing people. I have been introduced to startup founders. What I dont like is people (read recruiters) who have never shipped a product pretending to add value by injecting themselves into the process and decided who I should talk to.
Yes I agree with you about the cost of building an application, but its always been cheap form a code generation perspective. The marketing and sales channels (read viral "whatsapp", which is unique in the world) have changed. You don't need to have a boat load of sales and support personnel anymore, because 1, its not expected, and 2, you have the web to deploy and support your app which is a force multiplier.
I don't think the CTO/VPE is the guy with the most or even the best grasp of how software should be developed. He should be the guy that most effectively bridge the communication gap between the engineering dept and the board room. Focusing the group on the things that will make ownership happy.
In that respect sometimes the CTO is a guy that gives the BOD confidence that he'll look out for the Boards interest, not the guy who's going to deliver. I know that may sound counter-intuitive but its true.
The entire recruiting business seems bogus.
Thx