This is correct.

The dirty job of talking to people about stuff they don’t get / care about isn't something they are often good at. Dr. Watson (a business co-founder) is likely to come with people skill.

This is incorrect and likely has led to the collapse of more startup partnetships than almost anything else. Simply because a techy is good with computers doesn't mean he somehow is less able to interact with the real world or understand customers. If you are buffering your technical team away communication with real customers, you are going to fail. The technical team is not just tapping at a computer and making magic come out - they are directly solving deep and intrinsic logical problems in your business-customer-offering interaction. Their understanding of the problem is the key to your startup succeeding.

Simply creating a plan and then having a technical team 'execute it' does not work in practice, as the details of the execution are just as important as the bigger picture, and the details must tie up perfectly with the bigger picture. The technical team must be involved in strategy and business, and the business team should be involved in important technical decisions. Best of all, you really shouldn't have a divide at all in the part of your startup that needs to be most cohesive, and both founders should be technical and business founders. Or at least, respect and understand both sides.

Their understanding of the problem is the key to your startup succeeding.

The first is hyperbole and patently false. The last is definitely true, but has nothing to do with the first. It seems like either you've never actually been in this situation or you're conflating "real customers" with "tech-savvy investors:" The former will frustrate technical people and vice versa; the latter will expect to hear from your tech team as proof of viability.

The technical team must be involved in strategy and business...

Also false. I've been in situations where this has been done both successfully and unsuccessfully, and the successes came either from a coincidence of multiply-educated people or by brute-force right-place-right-time situations -- another coincidence. Technical people can be good and insightful in this way, but it's by absolutely no means something to be assumed.

...and both founders should be technical and business founders. Or at least, respect and understand both sides.

This discounts almost everyone, since most people just don't have both educations or the time for them, and the education alone is worth little without experience, which takes a lot more time. You did get it right at the end, though; founders on all sides should have a basic understanding of and respect for those who are handling the other aspects of the business.

Basically, most people who are very skilled are so in one field. Don't ignore them just because they're not also your ideal candidate from another field; you will more often than not end up with someone who's mediocre at doing two things and is now responsible for both of them.

... is hyperbole and patently false.

Personally, I think RyanZAG was right. At least if we're talking very early stage startup... I believe the techies need to be in front of the customers, hearing their feedback first hand, not hearing it after it's been distilled and processed by people "upstream".

Having a cohesive understanding of the problem being solved, making sure everyone is aligned, and having everybody moving in the same direction is critical, and making sure everyone has a shared understanding of exactly what the customer is saying is part of that.

Now if you're IBM or Microsoft, sure, maybe you can get away with having 3 or 4 levels of managers, product managers, product owners, tech leads, and techies between the customer and the code. Or not. I'd argue that this is a bad idea, to some extent, in any organization, but that's probably an argument for another day.

and both founders should be technical and business founders. Or at least, respect and understand both sides.

This discounts almost everyone, since most people just don't have both educations or the time for them

I think it's true that there are few people walking around who are (already) both talented techies AND very knowledgeable business people. But if you rephrased RyanZAG's comment every so slightly to

"and both founders should be technical and business founders, OR be willing to learn the side they don't already know"

then you'd be onto something. And to some extent, I think that's captured by his comment:

Or at least, respect and understand both sides.

Of course, I'm biased, since I'm one of those people who came solidly from one side (tech) and is trying to force himself to learn the other as he goes.

Absolutely! But I feel like you're misunderstanding the author's point.

Everyone in a company should talk to customers. Talking to customers is a tiny portion of what a "business person" does.

Neither one of us is more important than the other: our value exists in our complementary skillset and our ability to collaborate in order to create value. We are very respectful of each other's skillsets and understand what each person brings to our company.

I think a mutual lack of respect is what makes posts like this still exist.

My thoughts exactly, and this is tangentially discussed in the beginning parts of the post (and to not enough depth imo). But all things being equal, if the "business guy" really is the side which has all the "people skills", then I think it's the business side that needs to make an effort to first extend a hand to the coding side and try in earnest to build a bridge.

(disclaimer: at this stage I am on the "business side" as well)

I think a mutual lack of respect is what makes posts like this still exist.

Absolutely. I also think that emphasizing - and encouraging people to think in terms of - a divide between the "business side" and the "tech side" is a bad thing. I mean, labels are a convenience, and exist for a reason. But some become damaging by their divisive nature and this is one divide I find to be poisonous. We're all on the same team (in an organization) and I firmly believe that it would be better for everybody to quit acting like there is this "chinese wall" between "tech" and "the business".

Or, to the extent that there is such a wall, start looking for ways to tear it down.

Exactly. If done right, a traditional "tech co-founder, business co-founder" relationship involves both people overlapping a bit, Venn diagram style.

I'm the grandparents co-founder. Stella can do basic coding, but that's not her forte. She has a business mind, while I have a more logical, technical mind. We're like Captain Planet in that sense. We feed off each other's unique skillsets, but we have a solid understanding of each others complimentary skillsets so that we're not divided and disrespectful of our unique contributions.

Is one of us better than the other when it comes to our company? Of course not. The company needs both of us, or it would die.

I hear ya. My co-founder and I have a similar relationship, although the divide isn't "techie" and "non-techie". We're both techies, but different kinds. I'm more of a server-side, backend, database, low-level coding guy, while my cofounder is a UI/UX guru who wrangles HTML, CSS, Javascript, JQuery, etc. And more importantly, she has the designer aesthetic sensibilities that I lack. I "know" CSS in a mechanical sense, but I still can't design a good looking UI. And likewise, she can write code, but it isn't her main strength or her passion. So we complement each other well.

Is one of us better than the other when it comes to our company? Of course not. The company needs both of us, or it would die.

Yep, same here.

The whole "those useless business people..." mentality may pop up in large corporations where roles are siloed off strictly and contact between groups is minimal, but if it's popping up in your startup it speaks to a failure to build a culture of mutual respect and transparency.

It is not for those who already understand value of what the other one is doing but many others [parters and mostly employes] who don't get it.

"Technical" things are likely to be more visible, trackable and tangible than "business".

He's not even really bothering to sell it to us, he started the article with a short narrative with himself in a position of confident authority speaking to the low-status, highly-emotional babyish developer who he closes down by condescending with a high-status signal of "You really want to know?" with trademark eyebrow raises.

This whole site, at least until a couple of years ago, was a monument to the idea that Hackers could build and execute technology businesses better than many non-technical business people. This "King" fellow that has decided to come in and condescend us by telling us something that we probably understand on a far deeper level than him: the whole system.

>> These two worlds, in a startup, are intertwined yet run parallel.

You are conflating parallel and intertwined which shows serious misunderstanding. It's by having people that deeply understand both worlds that you are able to create superior products. The world is intertwined! A Hacker is somebody that manipulates systems technical or social; and your separation of the areas is simply an artifact of a broken culture that will cause problems for yourself and others. Never dictate from a position of ignorance.

Edit; There are lots of technical people that understand business, and very few business people that understand technology. It would be far more helpful if you were able to explain the difference between high-leverage technology people and low-leverage technology people to business guys; I suspect this is a frame which might at least show them the utility afforded if they learn how to think about technology.

This reminds me a bit of Quaker Meeting House. Anyone can get up and say something it doesn't matter who they are or what they have to say. Then someone can get up and say something else or comment on what the previous person or person's said.

I guess the thing that I find amusing (and the point of what I am saying) is how some of these things end up being voted up and commented on (until they are killed) and given way more attention then just a comment of the same length resulting from a more authoritative post buy someone else.

Add: In other words showing how much formatting and presentation matters as opposed to strictly what you have to say. Ironically.

You can copypaste from stackoverflow into your rails app. Great, but please stop bragging about it. You can build the best iphone apps the world. Awesome.

But let's be honest - it doesn't matter.

Imho: Millions of startups are in the earliest stages of product innovation/development.

And in that early stages there are million of tasks in product development you need to do. Writing code usually comes very late - if at all.

Millions of assumptions/feature/startups ideas that can be killed without writing one line. Millions of customers/ideas/dollars that can be commited before you write the first line.

A business guy without his first customer searching for tech co-founders is a failure. A tech guy without his first customer writing code is a failure.

I am a tech/product guy and i do not understand "idea guys", "business guys" or "tech guys" who reduce startups/product innovation to shipping code. And by that basically stay in their comfort zone.

Imho: the hard thing about startups is not how to build stuff. It is figuring what to build.

And here "business"/"tech"/"idea"/"design" people are all equally needed.

I don't often disagree with PG but while his statement is technically true, if you have no experience bringing a product to market you'll NEED to either get LUCKY first time around (good luck with that) or find someone with this experience.

I have been in the business of selling products online (physical products, software and ebooks) and I still find it a challenge every-time I am faced with a new product and a new market but I have to pay my bills, so I get it done.

Bottom line, it’s true that a developer doesn't NEED a business guy at the beginning, but having one who knows what he is doing will certainly save you a lot of heartache.

Likewise a business-guy doesn't NEED a developer at the beginning; if you're a true entrepreneur, you'll make it work without one.

PS: I'm a business guy (I earned this title by starting a handful of successful companies) who learnt how to code and now works at a start-up as a Junior DEVELOPER to gain some experience. The way I now see it, coding is a fundamental skill you need to be part of the software industry and while it may never be my core competency, not-knowing how to code will never hold me back.

I'd say for the most part, technical people are builders. I'd also say for the most part, non-technical people are extractors (especially at early stage companies).

I think that for many startups though, in order to be successful, you need to have both technical and non-technical builders. There are plenty of "business people" out there, but not many that add a ton of value. The magic happens when you have these two very opposite builders working seamlessly together.

As a non-technical co-founder, I think that it is important for business people to understand that the value of being able to develop in-house and iterate quickly is out of this world, and that you should never take having an awesome technical co-founder for granted.

I think this is a very poisonous mindset. Well, depending on exactly how you define "non technical". I'll read it as "doesn't write code". In a technology company everybody, even the "business people" should be somewhat technical.

But anyway, if techies sit on their little perches with their self-appointed, smug sense of eliteness and look down on all the "business people" as "value extractors" I think they are very misguided. We know "if you build it they will come" doesn't usually work, and in a tech startup, somebody has to understand marketing, promotion, sales, advertising, PR, finance, funding, etc. in order to build a company. The people doing that are adding value (if they're doing their job correctly anyway).

I know I've ranted about this until I'm blue in the face, but please... neither the "tech guy" nor the "business guy" can exist in isolation (aside: unless they are the rare bird who can fill both roles, at least on an interim basis).

Coming at this as a programmer who decided to found a startup, I've gained a TON of respect for the talented business people out there. It turns out, defining a target market, doing market research, developing a marketing strategy, writing content for a "content marketing" approach, manning twitter, facebook, g+, etc. to try and collect leads for your "permission marketing" stuff, prospecting for leads, doing industry research, finding partners/affiliates, talking to investors, talking to customers, writing press releases, talking to journalists, etc., etc., etc. is a LOT of f%!@ng work.

So much so that I'd LOVE to find a "business guy" to join our co-founding team, so I could offload some (but not all) of this stuff. I say "not all" because I think a tech founder can't just go sequester himself off and write code... even with a "business guy" cofounder. You still need to be, IMO, very involved in shaping the overall product strategy and vision, and need to be out there talking to customers and getting that first-hand feedback. But having that dedicated "business person" can eliminate some of the stress, especially when you're having to "teach yourself as you go" on marketing, PR, etc.

What most people don't understand is why the business-side, and especially at the executive level, deserves to be paid so much higher (sometimes exponentially more) than the technical side where the product/brand value is usually being directly or indirectly created? Especially in a tech-oriented business, which more and more U.S. businesses are now-a-days. An article explaining how these effects come into fruition (whether it is that business-people tend to be equipped with better negotiation skills, are better at selling their own skillsets in an interview setting, etc.) might be better received.

edit: though this will quickly lead to a discussion on the merits of (late) capitalism as a whole because these problems extend well past the tech world. It's just that now that our economy is decidedly service-based, technical products (or products that at least depend on technology and therefore technologists) are beginning to dominate the landscape but the unbalanced pay for workers/programmers vs. managers/upper-echelon is more pronounced than ever.

They also have to tell the programmers what the product is so they can build it, but the way they figure out what the product is, is by selling it.

Selling is not a one-way flow of information where a salesperson asks people to buy something. It's also a process of probing and gathering information about what people want to buy, and that's arguably more important in a startup.

Likely the story which is supposed to set tone for rest of the article is entirely put forward as figure of speech. Any programmer in right mind can't deny role of a business person in the team. Heck - me & my co-founder are hard core techies and we are often exasperated dealing with clients (not that we hate it), government taxes and all sort of taxes/regulations our company has to file. We do wish, if someone can make all that pain go away!

We even for a moment never underestimate things a dedicated business person could do but like everything else finding right one is hard work.

After reading this article, I thought, "Okay, 'business guy' = marketer." That added a lot of clarity for me.

Good work.

Good: technologists who recognize that business people don't deserve to hold all the power just because they control the money. Business people who recognize that they have something to offer, but don't try to turn it into interpersonal power over the (socially weak, often) engineers.

Bad: arrogant asshole brogrammers who think everything that isn't code isn't worthy of respect. Business people who think programmers are a commodity (news flash: we're fucking not and if you staff up with CommodityDevelopers, say hello to VisitorSingletonFactories and goodbye to getting anything done.)

There's a difference between the two. Business people add a lot of value, but there are a lot of arrogant schmucks in that set who detract, and who give the whole set a bad name.

I think the issue is that the correlation between wanting to code and being good at it is positive. For management, it's the reverse. Good managers are not people who want to be bosses, and the people who've wanted to be tech managers since age 19 are huge fucking douchebags. Good managers want to build great things and see management as part of the process in getting there. Shitty managers want to be bosses. Excellence wants to do great things. Mediocrity wants to be great (in title and reputation).

Management (as in, the work) is important and, when done well, worth a person's salary several times over. The problem is that 90% of the people who are trusted to do it, at least in private-sector technology, are fucking horrible at it.

I'd like to add to this by rephrasing it to: "Shitty managers want to be bosses. Great managers just want to help each of their team members."

Dead on. Worse, in my experience, is that the only people who become managers are the people who want it the most. It's a system that seems almost purpose-built to promote douchebaggery.

I almost think we have the wrong idea in paying managers so well, because I like the public-servant model seen in democratic-republican governments better than this antiquated overseer-nobility nonsense. Granted, we still have narcissistic politicians out there, but they aren't nearly as bad as the corporate executives.

Luckily companies who follow that path will eventually implode and be replaced by others who can only hope to survive long enough to follow the same path.

It's still not going to stop the macroeconomic entropy that will eventually see Valve and Github die like every other company. Things fall apart.

Also calling software engineers for techies just feels like the author is deliberately trying to insult.

Thanks.