>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 ji

>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.