Ask HN: What's left for early startup engineers as the company grows?

463 points by tootall ↗ HN
Howdy

I joined a startup ~2 years ago as employee #2 (software engineer), and thus I've had the responsibility of essentially building every technical aspect of the company from the ground up, which I loved. Now, the company scaled up (about 45 people) but, instead of being happy, I feel like everything's been taken away from me:

- Technical strategy: I strongly shaped the technical direction of the company defining a lot of critical points, and now they brought in a VP of engineering

- Management: I managed an entire team of 10 people without ever missing a deadline of the whole team, and now they brought in an engineering manager

- Customer facing roles: I was having a lot of customer interaction and support, now they brought in a support engineer and I don't even know who our users are anymore

- Infrastructure management: I took care of building a state-of-the-art scalable and fully automated infrastructure in the public cloud, and now they brought in an operation guy

- Developer: This is the only thing I still do, full time

Essentially, and I understand it's just my ego speaking, I feel like there has not been any career advancement for me. The only benefit has been the gazillion things I learned in this ~2 years journey by doing the above roles.

I've been told that now, since I don't have to worry about the other things, I can focus on what I'm able to do best, just writing code (which I agree, all the tasks I did were less challenging than some critical parts of the code base I wrote from scratch), but still in the "about us" web page of startups just the management is going to be listed and take the credits. Where did I fail to claim my part when the company was growing?

I understand this is a first world rant and and I should just "be happy" it has been a success so far, but still I find it hard and I would very much appreciate the opinion of other people who went through something similar.

Thank you

192 comments

[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 258 ms ] thread
I've heard that before. You were very productive coding, almost too busy and if they promoted you then they would be one good coder short. It was easier to hire somebody fresh with an outside look to think long-term. I expect you will soon be heading a 'special projects' group as a perk to keep you motivated (that group might build a second website or launch in another country or create prototypes so that could be great). The only thing you could have done would be to insist on becoming a/the CTO from the beginning and not let them hire anybody on top. Were you cut for that from day 1? Often investors add pressure to replace parts of the team with 'more experienced' experts, that can also affect founders (being stripped of CEO and president titles).
The rub with startups is that leadership may not have experience with developing careers.

From what you've written, it seems like you really don't have a lot of experience developing careers either, which is one reason to bring in an experienced engineering manager. It's not a knock on your skillset managing a 10 person team and delivering. Just a realization that management isn't something you can just quickly learn on the job.

My advice: have a discussion with whomever the new engineering manager is, and explain your career aspirations and the current dilemma you have.

Agree with this advice. You should talk to your manager and work out a plan to achieve your career goals within the company. This is a significant part of your manager's job responsibilities, and assuming they are good a good manager, then they will be more than happy to work with you on this. You are obviously an important part of the organization and if they have any common sense, they will want to retain you. And if, for some reason, it turns out there is no good way to grow within the organization, then start weighing the pros and cons of leaving.

Also, remember that transitioning into a management role is an advancement only if you want to be a manager. It's a career change, and is not suited for everyone. This is why many tech companies have pure developer track advancement opportunities.

As employee #2 he should be talking to (presumably, his friend), the CEO, regardless of who his manager technically is.
Exactly. If he doesn't have an open line with the CEO, then I would leave, assuming I have some percentage of options that had vested. I would stick around long enough to vest, then go start your own thing or be a cofounder of something.

I know this situation well. I am employee #1 in a 55 person company and I feel like I might as well be employee 55. But, since I'm remote, I can do my thing, write code, and generally be left alone while getting paid regularly. So being cut out of the loop does have some advantages, especially if you're remote.

> I'm remote, I can do my thing, write code, and generally be left alone while getting paid regularly. So being cut out of the loop does have some advantages, especially if you're remote.

There is the opposite end too. I joined a 100 person company, and some early founding employees were clearly resting and vesting, while I was working nights and weekends to iterate and replace prototype software written by early team members. I was grateful for the company they built, but was curious why they had an entitled approach to their positions.

Software is meritocracy based, not loyalty and tenure.

As employee #1, in what ways do you think you should be treated differently than the other employees?

Software might be about meritocracy but power is not.

It's not entitlement so much as ownership, they don't feel they are entitled to 5% of the company, they own 5% of the company.

Depending on how much equity they have collectively they might be able to fire the CEO if push comes to shove.

Leave.

Be pragmatic: there will be other opportunities which are equally interesting and staying isn't helping. You could be CTO at a different startup. Further, you should be approximately at your zenith at the company and they should be able to provide a strong reference, if you stay dissatisfied your performance and appearance will suffer - along with your potential for future employment.

Also happiness is about the journey (career, parenting, etc). If you're not on a journey you won't be happy!

Very easy to say, but if you have significant equity (which, as employee #2, you really should) it's a lot more difficult to just step away.

"The journey" is all very well, but if that journey involves checking out for a year while you wait for a payout then so be it.

>>involves checking out for a year

Woah, I'm not saying you shouldn't be getting paid. The trick is getting paid while you are interviewing for new positions! Just make sure your interviewing for them.

Rather than checking out..... consider spending time trying to get mentored by the new managers. Think of the way Larry Page was mentored by Eric Schmidt. Also spend time reading about how to manage a large team.

Also consider... do you want to manage a large team? Or do it again from the ground up?

> if you have significant equity (which, as employee #2, you really should)

That's the big unknown here.

If he does have significant equity (even 2.5% or more is good), then what's the problem. He gets to share the long-term benefits without any of the stressful responsibilities and can be solely devoted to doing what he's best at. If a brief mention on About Us page is all he cares about, bring it up at your next review and say that it's not about ego specifically but more about career advancement and personal growth.

If he doesn't have decent equity then he should've quit long ago and hanging around any longer isn't going to be any more satisfying. Unless he is super critical to their development (i.e. only he knows how module X works), then he could negotiate a better job title at the threat of leaving but that could be a risky and burn-bridges move.

I'd be surprised if he has any "equity". He may have options, but that is a significantly different thing. Most onerously of course is that if he leaves he will likely have to shell out actual cash on a lottery ticket. Who knows if he can afford to do this, or if it makes sense to do this.

That is a long way of saying, under almost any reasonable scenario, whether he has significant options (vested or no) should not be the determining factor on if he should stay.

He should stay if it he enjoys the job, they are compensating him enough in real compensation to overcome his lack of enjoyment, or he doesn't have other job opportunities.

I will say, as a long term employee (though to be fair, it's not that long term) he should have the ability to more forcefully outline what he wants to continue with the company. If he doesn't, either he's fooling himself about his real value, or he is doing a poor job communicating it to the company. In either case, it's his issue.

Being early employee with 3% quickly turns into burnt out employee with 0.2% after a couple of funding rounds in adverse conditions with a brand new VP engineering who doesn't have the bandwidth or interest to find out how really vital you've been and how much more you still have to contribute. No shiny options package for you. Enjoy the holiday ham and the subsidized yoga.
One company, a good friend of mine was employee #1 and I was something like employee #40. After the IPO it turned out we'd gotten the same package equity and options-wise, which is to say, not much... Being an early employee, 99.9% of the time! means getting screwed.
(comment deleted)
He's probably got a 4 year vesting schedule and maybe a more recent evergreen grant with another 4 year vesting schedule. As intended, that's a good incentive to work on the problem before giving up.

The thing missing from the post is a description of what he wants. If it's more recognition, I bet he could talk to the founders and work something out. To them it'll be a justified and free way to keep a great engineer.

> Leave.

If he's got options, they'll be vesting -- typically over a 4yr period. He's 2yrs in so if he decides to leave, then he'll lose half of them. If he's willing to do that, then he'll have to exercise what he already has vested. Does he even have the cash to do that?

It's easy to suggest that people just 'move on' but it's important to remember the context.

>If he's willing to do that, then he'll have to exercise what he already has vested.

Not necessarily. It depends on the terms of his or her options grant. Many companies give employees a 10 year exercise period after they leave (advocated by Sam Altman: http://blog.samaltman.com/employee-equity).

Except after 90 days ISO become NSO, so you lose tax benfits. But maybe he 83b'd them and already purchased as employee #2
> "Many companies give employees a 10 year exercise period after they leave"

I suspect many companies don't do this, as there'd be no need to advocate for it otherwise.

A 10-year exercise window has to be extremely rare to the order of non-existing in SV startups. Maybe it's picking up stream since the article was written and I am not aware of it. Can an employee vouch for his/her employer (company) that does this? Do more recent YC companies do this?

In fact, even Quora hadn't actually implemented a 10-year exercisable window by the time (or right before the time) Sam's article was written: see comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7610668. Note that the article simply mentions it as an idea; not as an ongoing implementation. I wonder if it is now actually implemented at Quora.

sounds like you're in a great position to craft the position you want, and then shop around your experience to other startups

if you get a bite, go back to your startup, say you have another opportunity, see how much they want you

When they were hiring all these people... how did you react? did you express interest in these roles?
At a company with 45 people, all of the roles you mention probably should be dedicated roles/teams. You didn't do anything wrong, you were just successful at growing a company.

If you want to wear a lot of hats, go join another early stage company (the items you mention make an awesome resume). If you want to grow at the current company, pick an area or two (development+strategy or management) and let the ceo know what you are interested in.

You helped found a company and fell in love with the work of a founder. You can't re-found the same company, so found again!
You can play the lottery ticket game and move on, taking your 2 years of vesting with you.

Only do this if you think you've set the company up for long-term success and it will still be successful even without you there.

Also only do this if you think you can make out better in the long-term (more money, more equity, equally sure thing elsewhere), otherwise just buckle down and ride out the remaining 2 years.

Unless you think your current company is trash, then just bounce.

Were you considered for these roles or entirely left out of the process? How much have you actually talked to your management about this?
One thing you need to come to grips is that regardless of how smart you are, the VP of engineering is probably someone that has a lot more experience and clout than you do. If they aren't, then the senior management of the company is terrible. If your company has grown to the size of 40-50 people, that's the time when they need real experience to help drive them forward. They can't take a chance on a great programmer who has never managed an organization before or grown it from 40 to 200 people. So you need to accept that.

But you should stick by the VP of Engineering and learn whatever you can from them. Be their right-hand person, and try to become someone that the entire company goes to for technical issues. It's not hard to be the de facto CTO, just make sure you are a part of all the technical decisions, and a positive guiding force for the company. As you become more and more the face of technical decisions, eventually you'll be recognized for it, or you can go to another company in that higher role.

Why is it acceptable for the Founder/CEO to continue leading the company at 40+ employees but not acceptable for the engineer to lead an engineering team at 40+ employees? Seems like a double standard.
I understand, but you are right it's a double standard. The Founder/CEO usually got that position for reasons other than their their technical know how. Personally, If a CEO doesn't understand most of the nuts and bolts of the company they are running; bye! bye!(That is unless they are brilliant in other areas in business.)
> Why is it acceptable for the Founder/CEO to continue leading the company at 40+ employees but not acceptable for the engineer to lead an engineering team at 40+ employees? Seems like a double standard.

It is a double standard, but however it's hardly that cut and dry.

Post Series B, if the board does not believe the current Founder/CEO can take the company to the next milestones of growth, they will replace them.

Typically engineering teams need to scale sooner, so you you see a more experienced manager be brought in before the CEO is considered for replacing.

The CEO may also has the additional benefit of having the investors and board help him or her in their decisions.

The board is just a bunch of old white dudes with money. The fuck do they know?

EDIT:

balls187 suggests they know how to make money--which is perhaps true, but not necessarily in your field of endeavor or business, unless you've picked them.

kelnos is closer to it, which is that the board tells you what to do because they're the board and that's the power you've granted them.

Again, in neither case, do we actually need to assume they are making the best or even informed decisions. There are some great stories of boards I've known locally suggesting really dumb things that hurt and even killed companies.

Assuming you're correct (very debatable), it doesn't matter: they're the ones funding the company, so they get to make the decisions. This doesn't always work out well, but it's not unreasonable.
One could make the same argument for hereditary monarchy. Which I would take as a sign that maybe it is unreasonable.
Except that taking funding is a voluntary action. Living under a hereditary monarchy is not.
Presumably how to make money.
What are you thinking? You can't just point out that decision-making in Silicon Valley lies with a clueless investor class.

You've got to keep the charade going: keep them writing checks and thinking their input is valuable.

Investors are like companies, 60%-80%(Dubious estimation) are not that great, but every so often there is a good one.
Are you implying that young, poor black people know better?
reason number 472 to never take funding.. if your business can not be bootstrapped successfully, it's likely your business is going to never turn a profit. Funding is silly, i'd never subject any business i'm involved with to a board room full of investors that don't give a shit about me or my business and only care about PROFIT! MOAR PROFIT! blech.

So glad we're bootstrapped.. we're not doing millions a month in business, but we don't need to.. we've been profitable for nearly a decade, a SaaS service since 2002, and we do about 100k/mo in revenue. Pays the bills, pays our people, and we're all so much happier with life.

>if your business can not be bootstrapped successfully, it's likely your business is going to never turn a profit. Funding is silly...

Well, this just isn't true at all. Many companies have very high costs up front due to the nature of their business. This is especially true in hardware startups, but can also be true in software startups.

I guess, but there are so many better ways these days, if your product is worth building to get it built than to give up a huge piece of your pie. Crowd funding, etc.. if you have 10 years of R&D well you're better off just taking the idea to another company.

This is a generalization, but I think owners get their priorites mixed up when they are sitting on millions in free money.. their burn rate is insane.. they spend money on the wrong things, etc.. fancy offices, whatever, and they aren't even profitable. We work from home, and share a co-working space as well as an office with 2 other companies..

Office life is over rated and is a giant waste of startup funds. =/

Frequently in VC backed companies, founders are removed from the CEO role if they aren't showing the ability to monetize and determine "what's next." Sometimes the founder goes to a glorified secondary tech role like a fellow, and sometimes they leave the company all together.
One BIG reason to start your own company but never ever become an employee at a startup.

EDIT: The only benefit of working at startup (and a significant one) is to learn how startups work. If thats taken away from you then there is no point in risking your career.

(comment deleted)
The two are not equivalent, as you need different attributes in each case. The CEO needs to have the product vision and complete information about the company (see http://www.bhorowitz.com/why_we_prefer_founding_ceos for discussion), which typically only the founding CEO can have. You'll note that this is a continuation of the role they had when the company was small, though of course it requires a massive amount of learning.

However, for all other roles in the company, the important thing is having the experience to scale and lead that part of the company: sales, marketing, product, support, engineering. When the company is young, those roles will be filled by allrounders: people a few years experience who do everything in that area. As the company grows, you'll want to hire VPs who have the skills to lead those areas, often people with >15 years experience as a practitioner and/or leader in those areas.

It's not just engineering: you want a VP of Sales, a VP of marketing, a VP of product, etc. Those people will have the skills to take your existing sales/marketing/product/engineering org, and scale it without damaging it. If you have that skillset in your engineer #2, than it would make sense for them to do that role, but it's unlikely that they do, and certainly doesn't seem like it in th OP's case.

(comment deleted)
We are doing it differently. We don't think a tech driven business can be run by non tech leadership. We also don't think it can be run without business leadership. So we have two CEOs, on from tech and one from the business sector we are in. It works really well.
Not to be snarky or anything but the first thing that pops to mind: "Because it's his company".
> Why is it acceptable for the Founder/CEO

Chances are the Founder/CEO has a controlling share of the company's stock.

This x1000. The last thing you should do is withdraw, and leave everyone high and dry. I've seen this situation, where the 3 remaining of the original cohort, for some reason, resented the new CTO, and basically abandoned the company. Only reason they're still here is they have an ownsership stake and are friends with CEO. They could've been hugely impactful to the success of the company, but instead, they're sitting back to watch the everyone else fail.

Also, with this crew in particular, they really weren't that good. They begat a lava layered monstrosity that doesn't scale and isn't maintainable. Make sure that's not you.

What is wrong with leaving everyone high and dry? The CEO has no qualms about doing that to devs.

If an engineer leaving puts the company in a bad spot, then they are understaffed and need better management that can foresee and handle those transitions before they happen.

It's all part of proper engineering culture.

This is what happens when one person stops communicating to another due to lack of awareness; the other assumes the worst, and stops reciprocating. They are the only one who knows what's going on, yet it almost always comes down to them saying "Why should I be the first to re-establish communication?". You should do it because you're an adult, and the other person isn't a mind-reader; if you don't, you don't deserve any sympathy when the shit hits the fan.
I think even before you bring responsibility into the picture, there's a lot for each actor in this situation to gain from reestablishing communications(I certainly can't see what they would lose, except for face). This is assuming the other party is mature and rational though.
You're suggesting he owes them something, and it really sounds like he doesn't - they've passed him over for career advancement, so he needs to find somewhere he'll be appreciated
I don't understand why this attitude is a problem in this context.

It's their last and only pressure point in the political game that happens in the company.

If you don't feel that your skills are fairly compensated and you can't leave (due to contracting or vesting time) you don't have any other options.

Being a dick is not an option or a negotiation tactic, it is just that being a dick. Note I'm speaking to my experience, where tbe people in question do everything but actively sabotage the CTO in question.
"Being a dick is not an option or a negotiation tactic"

I disagree. Leaving is not "being a dick", it's looking out for yourself. If you don't, nobody else will. It's apparent this is the case with the OP: He was pretty much built the entire company up and was there for the company when they needed him (I would imagine late hours, weekends, etc).

Now that they don't need him anymore, they pushed him off to the side. I've heard this story 1000 times and experienced it first-hand.

I don't work for startups for exactly this reason. If I'm spending my life building your company, I better be getting 50% in equity. It's really not worth the fooseball table in the lunch room and the Red Bull in the fridge. This is why you need to get the young and naive to fill these roles.

I agree, leaving is not being a dick. Staying and not helping, or actively hindering new staff through lies and misdirection about implementation details of a complex application in a complicated domain is.
If they haven't elevated you into a senior management role after doing all those things successfully then they're probably fucking up.

if you believe in the company, and the founders, go to them and fight for what you've created and your position. If they don't listen and help come up with a solution to retain you, it's probably time to move on.

> Where did I fail to claim my part when the company was growing?

You don't give us a clue to answer this. Your whole story is about things that happened. You haven't told us about what you wanted. You haven't told us anything that you did to get what you want. Did you know what you wanted? Did you do anything to try to get it for yourself?

> I should just "be happy."

I call bullshit. If you were happy to passively accept what's being handed you (money, responsibility, acclaim), you wouldn't have made this post. Honest mindful gratitude makes a person happier, but cloaking bitterness with false gratitude, which this sounds like to me, will make a person ever more bitter.

You have to start with what you want.

If you want to keep doing everything like you did before, then you should make a career as early stage CTO. If you want reward and acclaim for that, then you have to negotiate it up front, usually as a nice slice of equity. Be advised, there's risk in that.

If you want to grow with a company, then you won't be able to do everything you were doing before. You will have to focus. And you have to assert your case that you want the role and can be successful in it. To grow with the company in one of these roles, you'll need to cede the other roles to new teammates. You will probably have to mostly stop coding. You will have to embrace the thousand headaches that come with the new role as the company grows.

These are two possible career strategies. There are others. All start with knowing yourself. All depend on asserting yourself.

It's time for you to start your own startup. I'm dead serious. You have demonstrated a lot of necessary skills. All you need is a cofounder and an idea. Take your time and be selective. As an experienced technical person you will be much in demand as a cofounder; you have the upper hand and can pick whom you want to work with. Or even do it solo if no one shows up that you feel good about.

Your career path is your responsibility. Don't expect anyone else to care about it, though occasionally someone might.

Maybe not even the cofounder.
Who do you report to? Did they discuss these hires with you? If you have a good relationship with the founder, you should frankly express what you'd like your trajectory to be and come up with a plan to make it happen. If this isn't something you can discuss with your founder or whoever you report to, then you should look for a better place to work that is willing to listen to you and to help you grow.
Is there a certain role you feel you were overlooked for - VP of engineering? Manager? Or did you want to continue being an engineer? If it was the former, the time to voice your desire has probably passed. If it's the latter - and you really do just like writing code but want some sort of recognition - well, take the money I assume you'll earn and think of that as recognition.
You've got a bunch of options, depending on your interests and skills.

You could be a repository-of-lore brilliant coder / guru. Sounds like this is roughly what the CEO has carved out for you right now.

You could be CTO/Head of Engineering. You may or may not want this job or be suited to it, based on what you've said so far.

You could sink down into the organization as a (hopefully) really rich mid-level engineer and enjoy the ride.

You could do it again as a founder rather than early employee somewhere else.

I think you should figure out what would be best for you, what you want, and then see if the CEO agrees and will make it happen. At some level, if you're a few years into vesting, and the company is successful, it may not significantly change your financial outcome to stay -- you have early stage stock in a successful startup. More could be nice, but it won't change your outcome 10 or 100x, like moving to a founder role would.

Lots of good options; just don't do the west coast thing and stew on it while you write increasingly bitter tweets and blog posts. :) Today is a great day to get some clarity!

> At some level, if you're a few years into vesting, and the company is successful, it may not significantly change your financial outcome to stay -- you have early stage stock in a successful startup.

somewhat related question - doesn't the huge taxes on the options exercise upon leaving make that huge difference between leaving and staying? How does people manage it? Doesn't it forces you to stay until the exit?

I'm sure you're right there are some tax consequences; I'm definitely not an accountant, though.

In a friendly situation if the company is in good shape, there are probably lots of options, including some sort of buyback to get enough cash for the taxes, or finding an investor who'd like the shares. If the company isn't doing as well as advertised, those possiblities are probably harder to get sorted.

For the US - Depends on if you're exercising and holding or exercising and selling. If you didn't get the opportunity, or forgot, to take an 83(b) election as a founder, then you've been paying income taxes as your shares vest. If you were keen on taking that 83(b) election, your tax liability is negligible on liquidation and you pay nothing until that point for usual ISO arrangements.
Interesting question you might ask yourself, do you want to be in management or not? Do you want to be customer facing? Or not?

When companies are small the jobs are all blends because they have to be, you just don't have the resources to do more. But as the company gets bigger (presumably through growth and not just a funding bump :-) you can allow folks to focus full time on specific roles which, in theory, gets you better execution of those roles.

A friend of mine once said you often could figure out what role you liked "best" by the first thing you did when you got in, did you check the build? (developer) did you check email? (manager) did you check the web? (marketer) A bit simplistic but it does make for interesting introspection.

As employee #2 you're well connected with the CEO and the other founders, and you can talk about what you want in your future. You should sit down and have that talk with them.

What if you check HN first thing you get in?
Then, you should write for techcrunch. </snark>
That's a valid point. I remember when I started my job, I spent about 1/3rd of my day working on support cases.

I made it very obvious that I did not like doing it, but was merely being a team player until the company hired the right people.

Again, that's why it's important to communicate where you expect your career to go.

Could be worse. I know someone who was an early employee of a startup. She had the desk nearest the front door, so she ended up being the receptionist. Five years later, she's still the receptionist.
The main question I have, which I don't see addressed in your description: do you have a meaningful equity stake commensurate with the contributions you perceive you made?

You might need to adopt the "owner's" mentality - which is that as long as these people are growing the value of the company, you are free to focus on what you enjoy the most, while they work to make your equity more valuable.

That said - if your contributions in all these areas are truly valuable, at a small company, there's always a case to be made for someone to be spanning functional areas, if they have the expertise and chops to add value. Probably worth a conversation internally. As others have said, assert yourself a bit.

This seems relevant: http://jacquesmattheij.com/first-employee-or-cofounder although in this specific case it's not much help.

I think ChuckMcM's advice of chatting with the founders a bit sounds good. You could try and spin it in a positive way... "I was doing all this stuff, and even if it was really crazy at times, I felt like I was growing a lot and contributing a lot, and I feel like I'd like to continue that somehow. What do you think?"

There are tough questions to ask yourself, and I applaud your introspection. One of the challenges of a rapidly growing company is keeping up with it. Hiring is about finding the right person for the right time. When a company changes drastically through growth, expectations and functions change. The person who did x may be unqualified to do y. In short, the company grows faster than the individual. Another dynamic is that as the organization grows, the need for generalists gives way to specialized employees.

I think this is a very powerful statement you made: "all the tasks I did were less challenging than some critical parts of the code base I wrote from scratch". This tells me that the problems that interest you the most are coding and architecture problems, and that you are happiest when solving those problems. Employees will have the greatest positive impact when they are focused on tasks that they enjoy. But it seems that you desire something more. What is dissatisfying about the current situation? Are you bored with the coding? Are you jealous of others getting recognition? Are you frustrated with the direction of the organization? Are you frustrated that you are no longer "that guy" whom everyone depends on? All of these circle around the same question: where do you want to be?

Leadership comes in many shapes and sizes. It's not just about how many direct reports you have. Fundamentally, great leaders shape the direction of an organization. Employees look to that person for advice, encouragement, and approval. It sounds like the company decided to hire others for formal leadership roles. A very difficult and powerful question is to ask yourself "what is the VP doing that I wasn't able to do?" There is a tactical reason that the CEO hired the VP, and it isn't because of credentials. Perhaps it's his/her ability to communicate across teams, or gain the confidence of management? Don't let your ego tell you "nothing, I'm better than them"; there is a reason they are VP. Different jobs require different skill sets, and understanding where you are strong and weak is critical your success. Being an engineer who kicks out mission critical code is fundamental to the success of the business, but it is extremely different than developing and managing a team. With a humble attitude that is always looking to improve, there is no stopping your career growth.

People have taken you for granted and don't care about you, period. 1. Be vocal about what you want, be it a raise or promotion! This is America. If you don't ask, you don't get anything. 2. You have other options! Go make your own awesome startup. If you have so many skills like you said, why not? 3. Just out of curiosity, are you white?
People have taken you for granted. 1. Be vocal about what you want, be it a raise or promotion! This is America. If you don't ask, you don't get anything. Are you an American? 2. You have other options! Go make your own awesome startup. If you have so many skills like you said, why not? 3. Are you aware of your own weaknesses? Maybe there is major weakness about you that stopped you from getting promoted but you are not aware of it!
If it's a promising company, ride it out 2 more years for vesting. Were you interested in any of the roles you mentioned?
I have a similar story in some ways. Employee #1 at a startup, wrote much of the initial codebase, been with the company now for a bit over 7 years. We’re 20 people now, and have dedicated people for support, UX, QA, product management, etc etc all of which I used to have a hand in in the early days. I manage a small team of developers (not all the dev, just the clientside team), I still code a good bit (obviously less than before) and I’m involved in a lot of product discussions to figure out what we’re going to build. We’ve struggled a lot with figuring out the right title for me, and as long as the actual work is the right mix for what I like then I don’t really care all that much. But I’ve been recently brainstorming appropriate titles that better reflect what I do, beyond just being a developer (which has been my title since day 1), and I’ve come to settle on “Technical Director of Product”, which I don’t think is a real job title in any normal world. I make sure that I’m heavily involved in product decisions, because the thing I’ve found the most satisfaction in is defining and building product, and shaping the direction of the company through influencing the product development path. And I’m grounded in the technical side of that, which is an important distinction to me, since too often “product people” have no technical background and just lob things over the fence to engineering without understanding the tech side of the house.

So for me the important thing was trying to understand what parts of the job I really want to prioritize (in my case active coding and product definition) and regardless of title making sure I inject myself appropriately. So that means if there’s a conversation about a new product we’re thinking about building I make sure I’m in those conversations from the beginning.

If you’ve been with the company from essentially day 1 you likely have a decent amount of political sway, even if you don’t know it. I’d start by figuring out which parts of the things that you listed you actually want to stay involved in. As another commenter mentioned, if you really want to wear all those hats then maybe finding another brand new startup is the only real choice. But if there’s one or two areas that are dearer to your heart then I’d try to figure out how to make that your day to day activity. And I’d hope given your history with the team that you can have a dialogue with the founder(s) about how to make that happen. At the end of the day the title doesn’t really mean shit, but if you’re not loving the work then you owe it to yourself (and they owe it to you) to figure out how to make that right.