Building tech leaders who think like CEOs (and deliver like operators)

So your newly promoted CTO walks into their first executive meeting, armed with deep technical expertise and genuine enthusiasm for transformation. Six months later, they’re frustrated, your digital initiatives have stalled and your board is questioning the technology leadership strategy.

This isn’t a story about hiring the wrong person. It’s a story about building the wrong environment.

Here’s the truth your consultants won’t share: When technical leaders fail, it’s rarely a failure of intelligence. It’s a failure of integration.

Charles Sims notes this in his analysis of C-suite dynamics, “If you’re seated in the ‘big chair,’ you can’t expect people to intuit where they need to go. You need to build the bridge.”

The organizations winning the transformation race aren’t just hiring better CTOs; they’re creating fundamentally different conditions for technology leadership to thrive.

The hidden architecture of failure

Before we dive into solutions, let’s diagnose what’s actually broken.

The problem isn’t individual competence, it’s institutional design.

Most C-suite structures were established when technology was viewed as a cost center, rather than a competitive weapon. The processes, meeting rhythms and decision-making frameworks assume technology comes after strategy, not during it.

This creates what I call the integration gap, the space between where technology leaders sit and where they need to be to drive real transformation.

Deloitte research on resilient technology functions reveals a telling insight: High-performing “tech vanguard” businesses fundamentally differ in how they structure technology leadership.

As Khalid Kark and Anh Nguyen Phillips point out, these organizations embrace “joint accountability” and “establish sensing mechanisms that help anticipate business change.”

Translation: They don’t just include technology in business strategy, they integrate it.

The strategic exclusion problem

Here’s the most expensive mistake organizations make: bringing technology leaders into strategy validation, not strategy formation.

I’ve watched this pattern across dozens of transformations. The business leadership team spends months crafting the digital strategy. They debate market positioning, customer experience and competitive responses. Then, in the final act, they bring in the CTO to confirm technical feasibility.

This isn’t collaboration, it’s a recipe for execution failure.

CIO advisor Isaac Sacolick sums it up nicely, “What the risk here for CIOs is to get something out there on paper and start communicating. Letting your business partners know that you’re going to be the center point of putting a strategy together.

“Being able to do blue sky planning with business leaders, with technologists and data scientists on a very frequent basis to say, ‘is our strategy aligned or do we need a pivot’ or do we need to add I think that’s really the goal for a CIO now is to continually do that over the course of how this technology is changing.”

When technologists inherit fully formed strategies, they inherit the constraints, assumptions and blind spots of non-technical decision-making. The result? Strategies that sound compelling in PowerPoint but break down in reality.

The integration solution: As Sims emphasizes, successful businesses bring technology leaders in “when the goals are still being shaped.” Technology leaders become co-architects of strategy, not just implementers of it.

The translation challenge

Every business talks about wanting CTOs who can “translate technical complexity into business value.”

But most create conditions that make effective translation impossible.

The problem isn’t that technology leaders can’t communicate. It’s that business leaders structure every interaction to discourage strategic thinking. Fifteen-minute slots for infrastructure decisions. “High-level only” constraints on technical briefings. Interruptions when discussions get into architectural details.

Sims captures the real need perfectly: “Ask them to explain how tech can enable outcomes, not just avoid outages.” But enabling outcomes requires time, context and genuine dialogue — not rapid-fire status updates.

The integration solution: Create forums for substantive technical dialogue. Allocate time for technology leaders to educate business counterparts on possibilities, constraints and trade-offs.

The four pillars of technology leadership integration

The rebel leaders I’ve studied don’t just talk about integration, they systematically engineer it. Here are the four pillars that separate transformation winners from digital theater performers.

Pillar one: Strategic co-creation

Instead of: Bringing technology leaders in for feasibility validation.

Rebels: Include them in strategic formation from day one.

The breakthrough insight is simple: Technology constraints and possibilities should shape strategy, not just constrain it. When technologists participate in strategic formation, they help identify opportunities that pure business thinking might miss.

Actionable implementation:

• Include your CTO in quarterly business reviews, not just technology reviews
• Require technology input before major strategic initiatives get funded
• Create joint business-technology planning sessions for all transformation efforts
• Give technology leaders access to the same market intelligence and customer feedback as other executives

Pillar two: Outcome-driven accountability

Instead of: Asking for deliverables and timelines.

Rebels: Define success in business outcomes and measure accordingly.

This shift eliminates the translation problem entirely. When success is defined in business terms from the beginning, technology leaders naturally think about impact, not just implementation.

The Deloitte study talks about “value-based investments” aligned with “iterative Agile sprints.” But the real innovation isn’t methodological, it’s definitional. Success gets measured by business value delivered, not features completed.

Actionable implementation:

• Replace project status meetings with outcome review sessions
• Tie technology leader compensation to business metrics, not just technical ones
• Create shared dashboards that track business impact of technology initiatives
• Require business case updates, not just project updates

Pillar three: Information symmetry

Instead of: Functional hierarchy with information silos.

Rebels: Ensure technology leaders have the same strategic context as business leaders.

Sims makes a crucial point: “Technology touches every department. The org chart should reflect that.” But organizational design goes beyond reporting structures; it’s about information flow and decision rights.

The Deloitte research highlights the need for “sensing mechanisms that help anticipate business change.” But sensing requires access to information, not just responsibility for reaction.

Actionable implementation:

• Include technology leaders in customer advisory boards and market research reviews
• Share competitive intelligence and industry analysis with the entire C-suite, not just business functions
• Create cross-functional intelligence-sharing sessions where every leader contributes market insights
• Ensure technology leaders participate in customer meetings and strategic partnerships

Pillar four: Translation excellence

Instead of: Expecting natural translation ability.

Rebels: Systematically develop two-way translation competence.

Here’s where most organizations get it backwards. They expect CTOs to be great translators but provide no development, feedback or support for this critical skill.

As Sims notes, “The best CTOs turn complexity into clarity. They make everyone around them smarter. That’s the leadership skill we should be measuring.”

But translation is a two-way street. Business leaders also need to develop competence in asking strategic questions that unlock technological insight.

Actionable implementation:

• Create monthly translation labs where technology leaders practice explaining complex concepts to different audiences
• Train business leaders to ask better questions: “What are the trade-offs?” instead of “Is this feasible?”
• Establish technology education sessions for non-technical executives
• Reward and recognize technology leaders who effectively educate their peers

Better leadership means faster business

When you get technology leadership integration right, the impact extends far beyond individual performance. You create what the Deloitte research calls enterprise agility: the ability to “nimbly strategize and operate” in response to constant change.

The data reveals so much: businesses with integrated technology leadership outperform peers across every meaningful metric. Revenue growth, profit margins, customer satisfaction, employee engagement and market share all improve when business and technology leadership truly collaborate.

But the most significant impact might be speed. Integrated organizations move faster because they eliminate the handoff delays, translation loops and rework cycles that plague siloed structures.

The competitive reality

While you’re optimizing technology leadership integration, your competitors are making a choice. Some will continue the old patterns: hiring smart technologists, giving them business requirements and wondering why transformation is hard.

Others will join the integration revolution. They’ll create conditions where technology leaders thrive. They’ll build strategic collaboration into their organizational DNA. They’ll accelerate past competitors while others struggle with digital theater.

The study reveals that tech vanguard organizations are already pulling away from baseline performers. The gap isn’t just technical: it’s structural, cultural and strategic.

Ready to ramp up?

The path forward isn’t about your next technology hire, it’s about the environment you create for technology leadership to succeed.

Week one: Audit your current integration points. Where does your CTO participate in strategic decision-making? Where are they excluded? Map the information flows and decision rights.

Month one: Redesign your leadership meeting rhythms. Include technology leaders in strategic formation, not just implementation planning. Create forums for substantive business-technology dialogue.

Month two: Implement outcome-based accountability. Replace deliverable tracking with business impact measurement. Align technology leader success metrics with business results.

Month three: Launch translation competence development. Create systematic programs for both business-to-technology and technology-to-business communication improvement.

Month six: Measure integration velocity. How quickly do business insights flow into technology decisions? How rapidly do technological possibilities inform business strategy?

The businesses that systematically build technology leadership integration won’t just transform their trajectory; they’ll transform their markets. They’ll set the pace while competitors struggle to keep up.

The choice is yours: Continue with traditional technology leadership models or build the integration capabilities that drive real transformation.

The rebels are already deciding. What about you?

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?