Honeycomb has a reputation for being a very engineering-driven company. No surprise there, since it was founded by two engineers and our mission involves building an engineering product for other engineers.
We are never going to stop being engineering-driven in the sense that we are building for engineers and we always want engineers to have a seat at the table when it comes to what we build, and how, and why. But I am increasingly uncomfortable with the term “engineering-driven” and the asymmetry it implies.
We are less and less engineering-driven nowadays, for entirely good reasons — we want this to be just as much of a design-driven company and a product-driven company, and I would never want sales or marketing to feel like anything other than equal partners in our journey towards revolutionizing the way the world builds and runs code in production.
It is true that most honeycomb employees were engineers for the first few years, and our culture felt very engineer-centric. Other orgs were maybe comprised of a person or two, or had engineers trying to play them on TV, or just felt highly experimental.
But if there is one thing Christine and I were crystal clear on from the beginning, it’s this:
✨WE ARE HERE TO BUILD A BUSINESS✨
Not just the shiniest, most hardcore tech, not just the happiest, most diverse teams. These things matter to us — they matter a lot! But succeeding at business is what gives us the power to change the world in all of these other ways we care about changing it.
If business is booming and people are thirsty for more of whatever it is you’re serving, you pretty much get a blank check for radical experiments in sociotechnical transformation, be that libertarian or communitarian or anything in between.
If you don’t have the business to back it up, you get fuck-all.
Not only do you not get shit, you risk being pointed out as a Cautionary Tale of “what happens if $(thing you deeply care about) comes true.” Sit on THAT for a hot second. 😕
So yes, we cared. Which is not to say we knew how to build a great business. We most certainly did not. But both of us had been through too many startups (Linden Lab, Aardvark, Parse, etc) where the tech was amazing, the people were amazing, the product was amazing … and the business side just did not keep up. Which always leads to the same thing: heartbreak and devastation.
✨IF you can’t make it profitable✨
✨your destiny will inevitably be✨
✨taken out of your hands✨
✨and given to someone else.✨
So Christine and I have been repeating these twin facts back and forth to each other for over six years now:
- Honeycomb must succeed as a revenue-generating, eventually profitable business.
- We are not business experts. Therefore we have to make Honeycomb a place that explicitly values business expertise, that places it on the same level as engineering expertise.
We have worked hard to get better at understanding the business side (her more than me 🙃) but ultimately, we cannot be the domain experts in marketing or sales (or customer success, support, etc).
What we could do is demonstrate respect for those functions, bake that respect into our culture, and hire and support amazing business talent to run them with us.
On being “engineering-driven”
Self-described “engineering-driven” companies tend to fall into one of two traps. Either they alienate the business side by pinching their nose and holding business development at arm’s length (“aaahhh, i’m just an engineer! I have no interest in or capacity for participating in developing our marketing voice or sales pitch decks, get off me!”), or they act like engineering is a sort of super-skillset that makes you capable of doing everybody else’s job better than they possibly could. As though those other disciplines and skill sets aren’t every bit as deep and creative and challenging in their own right as developing software can be.
For the first few years we really did use engineers for all of those functions. We were trying to figure out how to build and explain and sell something new, which meant working out these things on the ground every day with our users. Engineer to engineer. What resonated? What clicked? What worked?
So we hired just a few engineers who were interested in how the business worked, and who were willing to work like Swiss Army knives across the org. We didn’t yet have a workable plan in place, which is what you need in order to bring domain experts on board, point them in a direction, and trust them to do what they do best in executing that plan.
Like I said, we didn’t know what to do or how to do it. But at least we knew that. Which kept us humble. And translated into a hard, fast rule which we set early on in our hiring process:
We DO NOT hire engineers who talk shit about sales and marketing.
If I was interviewing an engineer and they made any alienating sort of comment whatsoever about their counterparts on the business side, it was an automatic no. Easy out. We had a zero tolerance policy for talking down down about other functions, or joking, even for being unwilling to perform other business functions.
In retrospect, I think this is one of the best decisions we ever made.
Hiring engineers who respected other functions
We leaned hard into hiring engineers who asked curious questions about our business strategy and execution. We pursued engineers who talked about wanting to spend time directly with users, who were intrigued by the idea of writing marketing copy to help explain concepts to engineers, and who were ready, willing and able to go along on sales calls.
Once we finally found product-market fit, about 2-3 years ago, we stopped using engineers to play other roles and started hiring actual professionals in product, design, marketing, sales, customer success, etc to build and staff out their organizations. That was when we first started building the business for the longer term; until we found PMF, our event horizon was never more than 1-3 months ahead of “right now”.
(I’ll never forget going out to coffee with one of our earlier VPs of marketing, shortly after she was hired, and having her ask, in bemusement: “Why are all these engineers just sitting around in the #marketing channel? I’ve never had so many people giving opinions on my work!” 🙃)
Those early Swiss Army knife engineers have since stepped back, gratefully, into roles more centered around engineering. But that early knee-jerk reaction of ours established an important company norm that pays dividends to this day.
Every function of the business is equally challenging, creative, and worthy of respect. None of us are here to peacock; our skill sets serve the primary business goals. We all do our jobs better when we know more about how each other’s functions work.
These days, it’s not just about making sure we hire engineers who treat business counterparts like equals. It’s more about finding ways to stimulate the flow of information cross-functionally, creating a hunger for this information.
Caring about the big picture is a ✨learnable skill✨
You can try to hire people who care about the overall business outcomes, not just their own corner of reality, and we do select for this to some degree — for all roles, not just engineers.
But you can also foster this curiosity and teach people to seek it out. Curiosity begets curiosity, and every single person at Honeycomb is doing something interesting. We all want to succeed and win together, and there’s something infectious and exciting about connecting all the dots that lead to success and reflecting that story back to the rest of the company.
- Every time we close a deal, a post gets written up and dropped into the announcements slack by the sales team. Not just who did we close and how much money did we make, but the full story of that customer’s interaction with honeycomb. How did they hear of us? Whose blog posts, training sessions, or office hours did they engage with? Did someone on the telemetry pull a record-fast turnaround on an integration they needed to get going? What pains did we solve effectively for them as a tool, and where were the rough edges that we can improve on in the future?
The story is often half a page long or more, and tags a dozen or more people throughout all parts of the company, showing how everyone’s hard work added up and materially contributed to the final result.
- We have orgs take turn presenting in all hands — where they’re at, what they’ve built, and the impact of their contributions, week after week. Whether that’s the design team talking about how they’ve rolled out our new design system and how it is going to help everyone in the company experiment more and move more quickly, or it’s the people team showing how they’ve improved our recruiting, interviewing, and hiring processes to make people feel more seen, welcomed, and appreciated throughout the process.
We expect people to be curious about the rest of the company. We expect honeybees to be interested in, excited about and celebratory of each other’s hard work. And it’s easy to be excited when you see people showing off work that they were excited to do.
- We have a weekly Friday “demo day” where people come and show off something they’ve built this week, rapid-fire. Whether it’s connecting to a mysql shell in the terminal to show off our newly consistent permissioning scheme, or product marketing showing off new work on the website. Everybody’s work counts. Everybody wants to see it.
- We have a #love channel in slack where you can drop in and tag someone when you’re feeling thankful for how much they just made your day better. We also have a “Gratefuls” section during all hands, where people speak up and give verbal props to coworkers who have really made a difference in their lives at work.
We have always attracted engineers who care about the business, not just the technology and the culture. As a result, we have consistently recruited and retained business leaders who are well above our weight class — our investors still sometimes marvel at the caliber of the business talent we have been able to attract. It is way above the norm for developer tools companies like ours.
“Engineering-driven” can be a mask for “engineering-supremacy”
Because the sad truth is that so many companies who pride themselves on being “engineering-driven” are actually what I would call more “engineering-supremacist”. Ask any top-tier sales or marketing leader out there about their experiences in the tech industry and you’ll hear a painful, rage-inducing list of times they were talked down to by technical founders, had their counsel blown off or overridden, had their plans scrapped and their budgets cut, and every other sort of disrespectful act you can imagine.
(I am aware that the opposite also exists; that there are companies and cultures out there that valorize and glorify sales or marketing while treating engineers like code monkeys and button pushers, but it’s less common around here. In neither direction is this okay.)
This isn’t good for business, and it isn’t good for people.
It is still true that engineering is the most mature and developed organization at the company, because it has been around the longest. But our other orgs are starting to catch up and figure out what it means to “be honeycomby” for them, on their own terms. How do our core values apply to the sales team, the developer evangelists, the marketing folks, the product people? We are starting to see this play out in real time, and it’s fascinating. It is better than forcing all teams to be “engineering-driven”.
Business success is what makes all things possible
We are known for the caliber of our engineering today. But none of that matters a whit if you never hear about us, or can’t buy us in a way that makes sense for you and your team, or if you can’t use the product, or if we don’t keep building the right things, the things you need to modernize your engineering teams and move into the future together.
When looking towards that future, I still want us to be known for our great engineering. But I also want us to be a magnet for great designers who trust that they can come here and be respected, for great product people who know they can come here and do the best work of their life. That won’t happen if we see ourselves as being “driven” by one third of the triad.
Supremacy destroys balance. Always.
And none of this, none of this works unless we have a surging, thriving business to keep the wind in our sails.
10 thoughts on “How “Engineering-Driven” Leads to “Engineering-Supremacy””
As someone who has a non-traditional background (my degree is in marketing and management) in the infrastructure side of things, the idea of not being a person wearing a few hats is really foreign to me, and the thought of telling someone in another discipline that their discipline makes them somehow inferior is repulsive.
Great post Charity. Very curious how you can attract and keep a sales team when they aren’t revered as demi-gods and aren’t getting bonuses, vacations, cars, gold bars, diamond rings etc. (that no one else gets) i.e. the typical sales team arrangement at most companies. If you’ve managed to employee sales people without giving them special treatment I would love to know how you do it.
Lots of sales people actually want to be part of a balanced organization too. There’s decent folk of all types, and greedy folk of all types.
In my short time in sales so far at Honeycomb, I’ve seen a couple of things that Charity, Christine, and the rest of the C-Suite org has in place that have really differentiated from a more mainstream sales role: First, the support shown from every person in each org all the way up to even Charity herself, is amazing. As someone who doesn’t know shit about software engineering… yet, the support throughout (trainings, resources, engineers and C-Suite making time in their day to speak with salespeople and users), has only made me more interested in the complex world of engineering.
I also believe Charity are Christine are genuine people, and they truly do have a vision to change the way engineers think and work, and I think people are inevitably drawn to genuine people. They don’t just see themselves as world-class engineers looking to one-up everyone and make some money; they truly care about change, and they want everyone in their org to be a part of that.
At the end of the day, genuinely good people want to do genuinely good things alongside other genuinely good people, and that’s what you get here at Honeycomb.
aw, shucks! <3 we are happy to have you. :)
Mutual respect is a basic requirement but if you are honest, the engineers bring the real added value, everything else is just auxiliary work. I’ve seen it the other way around too many times. There were these shining businessmen, who got all the glory…
That’s very engineering-supremacist of you. (:
It’s not ok for either the business or the engineering side to get all the glory. Businesses don’t succeed on engineering alone, therefore engineering is not the only added value. Period.
Depends on how you define “value”, I guess. If you define it as that thing your customers actually use, then it’s arguable that engineers create the only value. But products and businesses do not exist in a vacuum. A product that perfectly fulfills someone’s need but which that person knows nothing about has potential but not real value. Hence marketing provides the value of bringing awareness of the product to the people who need it. A product that perfectly fulfills someone’s need which that person knows about and which an engineer has the capability to build but which no one can afford to pay that engineer to build also has no real value. Hence businesses provide the value of coordinating the resources required to build the product. There’s a web of added value that goes into making a product that provides the actual value, really.
[…] true. Right from the start, Christine and I were intent on building not just great software, but a great software business. It wasn’t personal wealth we were chasing, it was independence and autonomy — the […]