Business Guy: Why Engineers Don’t Like MBAs Looking For Tech Cofounders

The problem is most business guys aren't business guys. By splitting the world into "technical" and "non-technical", the title "business guy" just means "a guy who can't code but wants to do a startup". Most self proclaimed "business guys" aren't business guys, they're nothing guys.

I contend that it's easier than ever for true business guys to find a technical co-founder. But for that to happen, they actually have to do their job, which is to drum up business.

Here's what non-technical people should be doing BEFORE they even start hunting for technical co-founders if they want to be introduced to a tech co-founder actually worth having:

* Conduct 100 customer interviews within the target demographic, record them on video and edit it down to a 2 - 5 minute reel that provides some unique insight or perspective on the market that others have not realized. Ask for a verbal intent to buy at the end of the interview and achieve at least a 10% success rate. Prove that your idea is within striking distance of product/market fit.

* Start a blog within the target demographic, achieve a steady readership of at least 100 pageviews/day within the target demo and build up a mailing list to at least 1000 qualified subscribers. Prove that you can own an effective marketing channel that is unavailable to competitors.

* Build out whatever parts of the business are possible using human labor in replacement for code and demonstrate actual customer demand, validated by at least $100/month of revenue. Use spreadsheets in place of a database, text messages from your phone in place of notifications etc. and demonstrate where automation can lead to easy efficiency gains. Prove that there even is room for technology as a core competency of this startup.

* List out at least 3 major learnings, lay out what your original assumption was, what data prompted you to change your mind and what implications this learning has on all aspects of the business. Prove that you can remain open minded and pivot the startup as appropriate.

Achieve at least 3 of these 4 things and engineers will actually be interested in talking to you.

It's worth noting that this problem can be flipped the other way around: you get to hear a lot of tech guys trying to "disrupt" industries they know nothing about. The only reason why they don't sound like total jerks is because now coding is cool, when coding won't be cool anymore they will be considered jerks too.

I think someone else said it here already, but this is an extremely gross oversimplification of the issue.

My mantra is that a good startup requires two core skills: building a good product and getting customers to buy your product. The worse you (or your team) are at one, the better you should be in the other. Both take time and energy to learn and do well, and we shouldn't trivialize the effort and skill it takes for either side to do their jobs well.

A business guy reading up on code and putting up a site should be encouraged, but if his talents are best spent in front of a customer and closing sales, that's where the bulk of his time should be spent. An great engineer who can put together a decent pitch and has learned how to do Adwords / e-mail campaigns should also be encouraged to learn more, but again how much focus and leverage is it taking away from building the best damn product possible?

Let's learn to have a healthy respect for both aspects of the business. If you can do both really well, you are awesome -- most people cannot. Don't be a douche, know that everyone you meet is better than you at something, and have a healthy respect for "the other side".

Final note: Not at all defending 'value' of making spreadsheets, powerpoint presentations, and schmoozing, but understand that sometimes enterprise level sales are closed by good powerpoint presentations. Sometimes, new relationships with governments, investors, and customers are built over open bars and playing golf. And sometimes, that excel spreadsheet can be your first MVP to validate a new product (I personally know of a now-successful startup that used an excel file as the first version of their product).

Most MBA grads are insanely arrogant and completely technically illiterate.

A Wharton MBA is just partying and networking with other arrogant ibankers and consultants. They think having some idea is brilliance and they just need a monkey to code it up for them.

Their version of "hard work" is insane hours spent making spreadsheets and powerpoint presentation instead of building things and learning real discrete skills. Mixed in with more schmoozing and work dinners/open bars.

I have seen this firsthand (gf is a Wharton MBA grad)

I'd love to see MBA programs require a class called something along the lines of "Minimum Viable Business Guy". Coming out of that, an MBA grad would be able to pass the following standard "MVB" test from any potential partner:

  1) Open up Github for Mac </question>  
  2) What does MVC stand for, and why will you never touch
  M or C until you can demonstrate you won't f*ck up V

</test>

My personal gripe has less to do with the non-technical or business cofounder not knowing how to code but rather they know nothing about any other skill set, including the business side, yet often times think they do. This, in my opinion, is a bigger problem than whether or not they understand code.

Looking at things as "business" and "technical" is part of the problem. There are "products/services" and "customers". A group of people wanting to serve a market must be able to contribute to these two things - via programming, selling, insight, connections or whatever. This is important. It doesnt matter how one does it, but contributions ought to be meaningful. These labels (business, guy or technical guy) may prevent a good open discussion and box people, sometimes too early and sometimes needlessly.

Totally fair point--I'm looking into Python for similar reasons...what would a business guy know about Java syntax anyway? ;-)

i think its a bit of a gross over-simplification that this is why... but its a good observation.

two classic engineer arguments i've heard over and over in many contexts:

* academia is not grounded in reality therefore academics are not worth much - solving theoretical problems is not as hard as solving real problems and the tools and skills required are radically different. (or 'your MBA is worthless')

* engineers make products, you need a product to sell products, sales are necessary, but the rest is fairly optional and can be outsourced. sales depend on products not the other way around therefore engineers add more value than anyone else can. (or, i don't need you to the same level that you need me)

both arguments are flawed, but extremely common and have some truth to them. (you can flip them on their head too which is interesting...)

The article is a rather short piece and doesn't seem to have much in the way of new contributions.

I think it might be more fair to generalize the phenomenon that Engineers generally dislike MBAs in a multitude of situations.

unless your following lean startup the business guy has an idea expects the "computer" guy to put in tons of hours upfront why he adds little to the equation.