> I've been at too many places where the CTO only wanted to be a software developer/architect and would not focus on process, cost, employees, etc. CTO is a lea

> I've been at too many places where the CTO only wanted to be a software developer/architect and would not focus on process, cost, employees, etc. CTO is a leadership role, and leadership means you have to take care of all the responsibilities under your authority, not just the interesting ones A common pitfall among startups is to give the CTO title to whichever cofounder is leading the development when the team formalizes titles. Some times this person doesn't even have previous engineering manager (EM) experience at all, but as the most technically oriented person of the time they receive the CTO role by default. Some times these people can grow into the necessary delegation, recruiting, hiring, performance review, people management, communication, and meeting skills necessary to be a CTO. Other times, they cling to what they know (coding) and turn into a micromanaging CTO who won't cede control of the things they want to do (code) while avoiding the things they have to do (managing). This is one of many reasons why I advocate for avoiding C-level titles as long as possible at a startup. You can always promote someone up to CTO unceremoniously when the company actually needs defined C-level executives and they've been excelling at the role already, but it's much more problematic to ask someone to give up the CTO title and step aside to bring in an experienced CTO when necessary. Nobody likes being demoted, even if it's only a formality because they weren't actually doing the full management role. Any title demotion at startups is likely to lead to conflict and departures.