Seems like I read a different take on CTOs / VPEs every week or two. I've been a VPE several times, and as a cofounder. I, personally, think that a company should never have a CTO until you split the role into two; a CTO & a VPE working alongside each other. In that situation, the VPE manages the team, makes sure things get done, etc. While the CTO is working with other "C-staff" planning the longer (year+ out) roadmap of the company, with a focus on Engineering.
I have struggled with these roles and names, similar to Bryan Helmig, the author of this post. I have consulted with some former bosses, that now lead engineering teams at some of the larger companies here in the bay area, and have come to the conclusion that most CTOs are really VPEs, just using the wrong title, but in the end, the title does not really matter. Since it is extremely flexible in definition.
C level is more prestigious to outsiders than VPEs at the very least, so I don't have a problem with managers being CTOs. Still needs to be an architect or "owner/gardener of technology"
C-levels are, first and foremost, performers. They should not be invested with real authority; they should just be the set of pretty faces that get trotted out to the media, run conference calls, give presentations, and sit on sales meetings. They are media, PR, and sales operatives.
A position in the C-suite is a nightmare for anyone who wants to do serious work, and there is no reason that people who have a primarily external focus should be invested with the authority to destroy the internals.
Weird, as a COO this doesn't accurately describe me or my peers in the slightest bit. Sounds like you had a bitter experience somewhere along the way with a bad team.
Nah, I disagree. I'm not really bitter and I haven't met a C-suite that openly acknowledged their role as performers (though they are probably aware of it). There are a lot of people with strong non-performance skills who wind up in these roles (and I have met several such persons) because they're recognized as the most important leadership roles, and most people aren't going to say "no" to that.
But by that same token, the super-high visibility of the C-suite comes with a lot of constraints that hinder the freedom of people who are not primarily interested in the dog and pony show, because there is an expectation that CxOs will have a presence at various functions, meetings, and events that are not really related to their ostensible job functions, and because every public action of a CxO is subject to intense external scrutiny, including social media, etc.
Could a CxO come on HN and state his true opinions about things? Of course they would say they can, because the illusion loses its power when the curtain is drawn back, and it'd be a big story that "CxO of ImportantCo admits he's a big fat phony".
If their employer is small enough that nobody cares, then I'm sure it works fine because no one really cares. But if they get bigger, then it doesn't work fine anymore, and their history will be combed through by competitors and media alike in search of ammunition/scalps.
Really just need to get actors or media personalities for those roles so that real people can continue to be real and guide things intelligently, rather than constantly maintaining their persona and having to pull away from serious matters to attend irrelevant functions and presentations (schmoozing).
You can't really give the title "CxO" to people and not expect this kind of intrusive, restrictive, and distracting load to land on them, so it's better to compartmentalize the real tasks away from such titles.
I have struggled with these roles and names, similar to Bryan Helmig, the author of this post. I have consulted with some former bosses, that now lead engineering teams at some of the larger companies here in the bay area, and have come to the conclusion that most CTOs are really VPEs, just using the wrong title, but in the end, the title does not really matter. Since it is extremely flexible in definition.