Again, implies there is such a thing as a "list of CTO responsibilities". Companies can decide to give their CTO x or y portfolio, but by the time a company reaches the point where titles matter, it's hard to think of an intrinsically "CTO" responsibility that isn't covered by a VP/E or VP/PM. The one thing I can think of is "organization-wide architecture oversight", which is a pretty toxic role to assign.
In orgs where the CTO does a bunch of stuff, I think it usually makes more sense to think of them as a VP/E with a different-shaped hat (or a VP/PM).
There's definitely an interesting article to write about the VP/E who still codes!
> The one thing I can think of is “organization-wide architecture oversight”, which is a pretty toxic role to assign.
I don’t know that I understand what you mean by toxic or why, but I’ve only ever seen the architecture overseer kind of thing in pretty small companies. In big companies, where there are multiple VPs of engineering and product management, that feels like the only time CTO even makes sense, and I expect they need to be setting vision and deciding where to invest (i.e. setting budgets) sometimes handling legal issues. In such large companies I’ve never seen a CTO providing architecture oversight, let alone coding. They might mandate the use or avoidance of some tech for reasons of corporate politics, but they are never in the trenches.
Having been a founding engineer in a startup where I was called CTO and mostly wrote code, I feel like this is a ‘cute’ thing we do, using C-level role names for everyone in a 3 person company. I didn’t feel like a real CTO, or VP, and I feel like using C-level names for roles in startups and small companies is a little goofy and awkward. A lot of people seem to like inflated role titles, and VCs seem to like having someone in key roles who can both lead well and take all responsibility and blame. I feel like ideally the name CTO shouldn’t be used until it’s needed, which isn’t until there are enough devs to need managers, and enough managers to need VPs and enough VPs to need a CTO. If that were the case, then the possible things on the list of CTO responsibilities is a lot smaller and more definable than if we say CTO can be anything including the 2nd founder who’s more interested in coding than pitching or marketing.
Think about what it says, in a larger team staffed with competent technical talent, to have a single person across all of it reconciling decisions with their own personal mental model. I think it's an attractive idea for a lot of aspirants! Who wouldn't want to be President of Code? But ambiguity is resolved by practitioners at the sharp end of the system.
I see, and I agree completely. I don’t see the CTO as having that role, but you’re right I guess some people do. That’s one reason it makes sense to at least try to put some definition to the role, isn’t it? To help people realize it’s not a technical role, but a people/organizational role that generally only large organizations need…
In orgs where the CTO does a bunch of stuff, I think it usually makes more sense to think of them as a VP/E with a different-shaped hat (or a VP/PM).
There's definitely an interesting article to write about the VP/E who still codes!