What I have heard of Chiefs is the following:


  1. Bigger influence of decisions that will be made


  1. Less time to be technical. Most of the chiefs told me that they only can spend a maximum of 10% of their time to be technical.

What are other pros and cons of being one of the Chiefs or are some chiefs, e.g. CTO, CIO, COO spending more time to fix technical problems by themselves?

  • 1
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this belonsg to The Workplace or some other management related site, but that's loosely related to devops. – Tensibai Dec 12 '17 at 13:06

A CIO is part of the company leadership. His primary duties is to make policies, create organization (i.e., structure the company, at least the part that reports to him), make strategic decisions etc. In a large company, many technical people report directly or indirectly to the CIO; if there are technical problems to solve, he is supposed to hire people to solve those problems, or - more likely - have his direct reports hire those people.

I would be very wary if a CIO starts fixing technical problems himself. This probably would mean that he has trouble delegating, or trusting his employees.

There may be a phase in a very small company (like 5-10) where you might have some kind of senior technical person who starts to grow into the CIO role. But that should certainly be a path that develops itself (often it is quite obvious who is a good fit for that role and who isn't), and nothing where you start pondering whether you want to become CIO or not out of the blue.

| improve this answer | |

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.