4 ms·
> My second CTO was very technical an up to date the first wasn’t. The only difference between the two day to day was with the second one , I could use terms wi
by nordsieck 4y ago
> My second CTO was very technical an up to date the first wasn’t. The only difference between the two day to day was with the second one , I could use terms without defining them first. They both deferred to my technical judgement and I worked with the understanding of how to align my initiatives with the company’s.
> I work with CxOs all the time in consulting now. I have no problem getting my ideas through CxOs or architecture review boards.
Something to consider: there is probably not much difference between technical and non-technical when their reports are good.
But a technical CTO can stand up to reports that want to go down an obviously bad road, whereas a non-technical CTO would have as much defense as I would at jiffy lube when the tech asks me if I want my fluids flushed. It kind of sounds like a scam, but I really don't know.
- geertj 4y ago> But a technical CTO can stand up to reports that want to go down an obviously bad road, whereas a non-technical CTO would have as much defense as I would at jiffy lube when the tech asks me if I want my fluids flushed. It kind of sounds like a scam, but I really don't know. Very true. GP probably had good tech judgement which is why their technical CTO was following their judgement.
- scarface74 4y agoI had never logged into AWS when I was hired. I just had theoretical knowledge. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king, I’m amazed to this day that the CTO trusted me knowing that in advance. Don’t get me wrong, he didn’t blindly trust me. He pushed me harder than any other manager ever had to do things correctly and to think deeply and to write well reasoned documentation and presentations. I told myself that there were only two positions at two companies that could have convinced me to leave. I got hired by one of those companies. He left less than a year later after the company was acquired for 10x revenue. He’s working somewhere else now. I would work for him again in a heartbeat if I were working anywhere else besides where I work now.
- dijksterhuis 4y ago> whereas a non-technical CTO would have as much defense as I would at jiffy lube when the tech asks me if I want my fluids flushed. It kind of sounds like a scam, but I really don't know. I am genuinely wondering if I need some jiffy lube for flushing those fluids of mine. It... sounds like... a thing... that people... do?
- marcinzm 4y ago>But a technical CTO can stand up to reports that want to go down an obviously bad road, whereas a non-technical CTO would have as much defense as I would at jiffy lube when the tech asks me if I want my fluids flushed. It kind of sounds like a scam, but I really don't know. The non-technical CTOs "defense" is having found which reports they can trust and support to make the correct tradeoffs. Then they do that. More broadly if your reports aren't competent or trusted enough to make the right decisions then find new reports. The job of the CTO isn't to argue some stupid architectural point with people for hours. It's also not to blindly overrule them. Their job is to hire people that know more than them and can be trusted. Then it's to setup the processes within which those people can thrive. In fact the problem with technical CTOs is that they can rely too much on their own technical knowledge versus fixing the damn organization. It's basically a bunch of band aids being put on a gushing wound.