CTO Archetypes: Eight Shapes of Technical Leadership

CTO Archetypes

TLDR: The CTO title carries seniority but almost never comes with documented scope. Pat Kua introduces eight recurring archetypes that emerge based on organizational context, helping leaders, recruiters, and executives have clearer conversations about expectations and fit.

Summary:

Here's something that doesn't get talked about enough in our industry: two people with the exact same "CTO" title can have radically different jobs. I mean, one might be writing code at a three-person startup, while another is managing a thousand engineers at a Fortune 500. Same title, completely different universe. Pat Kua, with 25 years in the trenches, tackles this head-on with a framework that finally gives us language to discuss what we're actually talking about when we say "CTO."

The core insight is both obvious once you hear it and surprisingly underexplored: CTO roles aren't arbitrary, they're contextual. They emerge from specific organizational constraints. Kua identifies eight archetypes grouped into three categories. Early-stage roles include the Founder CTO, Startup CTO, and Fractional CTO. Growth-phase organizations tend to need Scale-Up, M&A, or Turnaround CTOs. And complex, mature organizations might need a Group CTO or CTPO (combined CTO and Product role).

The article digs deep into the Founder CTO archetype, and this is where it gets interesting. The fundamental tension is wearing two hats: Founder and CTO. During fundraising, guess which hat wins? Not the technology one. The Founder CTO often becomes the face of the business, spending more time with investors and customers than actually leading technology. This is the reality nobody tells you about when you dream of being a technical co-founder.

What I appreciate about Kua's approach is the explicit rejection of hierarchy. These aren't levels you climb. They're shapes you inhabit based on context. The same person might be a Startup CTO at one company and a Turnaround CTO at another. The key is matching the archetype to the organizational need, and that requires honest conversation about what's actually expected.

But here's what the article dances around: what happens when you're in the wrong archetype for your skills? Or when your company's needs shift and you don't? The framework is useful for diagnosis, but the hard work of transitioning between archetypes, or admitting you're not the right fit anymore, that's where the real career conversations need to happen.

Key takeaways:

• Two CTOs with identical titles can have radically different responsibilities, leading to misaligned expectations and frustration
• Archetypes are sensing tools, not boxes—they help turn implicit assumptions into explicit conversations
• The Founder CTO tension between founder duties and technology leadership usually resolves in favor of founder duties
• Context drives shape: early-stage, growth, and complexity each demand different CTO configurations
• Successful Founder CTOs like DHH and Mitchell Hashimoto stayed technical, while others like Jack Dorsey evolved into CEO roles

What's missing: The article provides excellent taxonomy but stops short of addressing the painful transitions. What happens when your company outgrows your archetype? How do you know when to hire a different type of CTO or step aside? The framework sets up the conversation but the hardest parts remain unspoken.

Link: CTO Archetypes