4 ms·

This can work, imho, IFF the organization has both a CTO and CIO (or someone else tasked with managing the org). I've seen lots of places where the CTO is pure

This can work, imho, IFF the organization has both a CTO and CIO (or someone else tasked with managing the org). I've seen lots of places where the CTO is purely the technical visionary/advisor/final decision maker, and doesn't directly manage the technical organization. This scenario is far more common outside of the tech industry, where you usually have a CIO running the IT cost center, and a CTO making decisions about technology adoption strategy.

ghaff 1y ago
CTO, CIO, and the head of engineering (the latter of which can often be split among different groups) are often very distinct things, especially at larger companies. And, yes, while the CTO probably has a seat at the table for technology direction is often primarily a public technology face of the company as opposed to someone involved in a lot of hands-on day to day technology implementation.
- LgWoodenBadger 1y ago
  “Probably has a seat at the table for technology direction” is a wild take to me. So much so that I can’t even formulate a response other than “what…?!”
  - ghaff 1y ago
    I'm not sure what you find confusing. Someone can have an advisory and essentially technology evangelist role without necessarily being the ultimate decision maker. (And, at a larger company, a variety of folks--including the board--will ultimately make final consequential decisions.)
    - acron0 1y ago
      How can the Chief Technical Officer not be the one chiefly responsible for technology decisions?
      - ghaff 1y ago
        Because, title notwithstanding, they may not be the person solely responsible for technical decisions especially at the detailed (or macro) level.
        ludwik 1y ago
        There is a big leap between them not being the sole person responsible for technical decisions and them not even necessarily having a seat at the table for technology direction. The former is understandable. Later - quite surprising.
        ghaff 1y ago
        I'm not sure what I wrote that's contrary to any of that? Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "probably"? There are a lot of people responsible for the technical direction of a large company of which the CTO is important but hardly the only one.
      - YZF 1y ago
        I thought it's typically Chief Technology Officer In most companies I've been a part off, including multiple >$1B tech companies, the CTO's focus is not on the engineering. That's the job of a VP Engineering or some similar position. CTO (which will sometimes have a "CTO office") is to work besides the engineering on investigating new technologies and ideas that are beyond what the engineering organization would have otherwise done on the day to day. They are also an authority on all technology in the company but are not in the engineering "chain of command". That said this is not universal, there are organizations where the CTO does lead the engineering organization. I think that's sub-optimal because there is always going to be tension between the day to day and the broader scope and those should be different roles. In a startup, it is more common for a CTO to lead engineering because there is not yet enough to justify having both a VP Eng and a CTO and perhaps most of the work is around figuring out technologies. But as the company grows it makes sense to separate those functions.
        ghaff 1y ago
richardlblair 1y ago
The technical capacity of a CTO matters less then the CTOs ability to stay in their lane (for a lack of a better term). I once worked for a company with a self taught CTO (and not the good kind). They had a number of star players, and this CTO would frequently lash out at them. All because he was getting in the way of them doing their jobs, doing work he wasn't qualified to do, trying forcing them to clean up after him, and then yelling at them for it. It was insanely toxic. I only lasted a few months. It was so bad I back channelled patches and project briefs to people he liked to get them approved. Had this CTO remained people, project and product focused everything would have been fine.
- whstl 1y ago
  > this CTO would frequently lash out at them [...] doing work he wasn't qualified to do, trying forcing them to clean up after him [...] and then yelling at them for it Was that a Fintech in Germany, by any chance? :) I once witnessed a meeting between a CTO and a Tech Lead. The CTO was attending from his laptop in an open office, and he was yelling in Russian for one hour straight at another Tech Lead because he wanted the tech lead to finish his work. It was a pathetic display, with the whole company watching and wondering what was going on. Eventually he was "phased out" by having a few people promoted to VP of engineering who would deal directly with the CEO instead of him. Last I heard he tried to rewrite the financial core in Golang by himself, but he failed since nobody wanted to work together with him and he doesn't really knew the language.
- Greed 1y ago
  Self taught in the programming sense, or the people management sense? Because I feel like the letter is much more common than not in software. Just curious in case there's an expected background you're thinking of when you say that. I have no point of reference for CTO backgrounds beyond generic MBAs or senior devs that either gave themselves the titles as founders or failed upwards.
straydusk 1y ago
You're not describing a CTO, then
- icedchai 1y ago
  "CTO" is defined by whoever confers the title and accepts the role. Titles are often vague and amorphous.

ghaff 1y ago

CTO, CIO, and the head of engineering (the latter of which can often be split among different groups) are often very distinct things, especially at larger companies. And, yes, while the CTO probably has a seat at the table for technology direction is often primarily a public technology face of the company as opposed to someone involved in a lot of hands-on day to day technology implementation.

LgWoodenBadger 1y ago
“Probably has a seat at the table for technology direction” is a wild take to me. So much so that I can’t even formulate a response other than “what…?!”
- ghaff 1y ago
  I'm not sure what you find confusing. Someone can have an advisory and essentially technology evangelist role without necessarily being the ultimate decision maker. (And, at a larger company, a variety of folks--including the board--will ultimately make final consequential decisions.)
  - acron0 1y ago
    How can the Chief Technical Officer not be the one chiefly responsible for technology decisions?
    - ghaff 1y ago
      Because, title notwithstanding, they may not be the person solely responsible for technical decisions especially at the detailed (or macro) level.
      - ludwik 1y ago
        There is a big leap between them not being the sole person responsible for technical decisions and them not even necessarily having a seat at the table for technology direction. The former is understandable. Later - quite surprising.
        ghaff 1y ago
        I'm not sure what I wrote that's contrary to any of that? Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "probably"? There are a lot of people responsible for the technical direction of a large company of which the CTO is important but hardly the only one.
    - YZF 1y ago
      I thought it's typically Chief Technology Officer In most companies I've been a part off, including multiple >$1B tech companies, the CTO's focus is not on the engineering. That's the job of a VP Engineering or some similar position. CTO (which will sometimes have a "CTO office") is to work besides the engineering on investigating new technologies and ideas that are beyond what the engineering organization would have otherwise done on the day to day. They are also an authority on all technology in the company but are not in the engineering "chain of command". That said this is not universal, there are organizations where the CTO does lead the engineering organization. I think that's sub-optimal because there is always going to be tension between the day to day and the broader scope and those should be different roles. In a startup, it is more common for a CTO to lead engineering because there is not yet enough to justify having both a VP Eng and a CTO and perhaps most of the work is around figuring out technologies. But as the company grows it makes sense to separate those functions.
      - ghaff 1y ago

richardlblair 1y ago

The technical capacity of a CTO matters less then the CTOs ability to stay in their lane (for a lack of a better term). I once worked for a company with a self taught CTO (and not the good kind). They had a number of star players, and this CTO would frequently lash out at them. All because he was getting in the way of them doing their jobs, doing work he wasn't qualified to do, trying forcing them to clean up after him, and then yelling at them for it. It was insanely toxic. I only lasted a few months. It was so bad I back channelled patches and project briefs to people he liked to get them approved. Had this CTO remained people, project and product focused everything would have been fine.

whstl 1y ago
> this CTO would frequently lash out at them [...] doing work he wasn't qualified to do, trying forcing them to clean up after him [...] and then yelling at them for it Was that a Fintech in Germany, by any chance? :) I once witnessed a meeting between a CTO and a Tech Lead. The CTO was attending from his laptop in an open office, and he was yelling in Russian for one hour straight at another Tech Lead because he wanted the tech lead to finish his work. It was a pathetic display, with the whole company watching and wondering what was going on. Eventually he was "phased out" by having a few people promoted to VP of engineering who would deal directly with the CEO instead of him. Last I heard he tried to rewrite the financial core in Golang by himself, but he failed since nobody wanted to work together with him and he doesn't really knew the language.
Greed 1y ago
Self taught in the programming sense, or the people management sense? Because I feel like the letter is much more common than not in software. Just curious in case there's an expected background you're thinking of when you say that. I have no point of reference for CTO backgrounds beyond generic MBAs or senior devs that either gave themselves the titles as founders or failed upwards.

straydusk 1y ago

You're not describing a CTO, then

icedchai 1y ago
"CTO" is defined by whoever confers the title and accepts the role. Titles are often vague and amorphous.