CPO or CTO: Finding the Right Balance

When product and engineering pull in different directions, the roadmap gets caught in the middle. Balance comes from shared goals, not competition.

In an earlier post, I asked a simple question: “CPO or CTO – Which Should Come First?” That article focused on early-stage companies making their first executive product or technology hire. But the underlying issue doesn’t go away as companies mature. In fact, it often becomes harder to fix.

Later-stage companies sometimes fall into the same structural trap, placing the product organization under the technology leader. Whether intentional or not, this decision creates a subtle but powerful imbalance. It shapes the mindset, behavior, and ultimately, the effectiveness of the product team. This post is not about job titles. It is about structure, influence, and the conditions required for real product innovation.

When product reports into technology, the organization naturally becomes engineering-led. Product managers often find themselves focused on delivery, not discovery. Their role shifts from defining the "why" and "what" to merely supporting the "how." The result is a roadmap optimized for feasibility, not for impact.

CTOs are exceptional problem-solvers. They focus on architecture, scalability, performance, and delivery. But the CPO's job is different — more abstract and more ambiguous. CPOs frame the problem, understand the customer, and define what success looks like.

If the CTO is your head of delivery, the CPO is your head of discovery. The tension between the two is healthy, but only when both have an equal seat at the table. Imagine putting marketing under sales. That might sound efficient. After all, marketing generates leads and sales closes them. But soon, brand, awareness, and long-term positioning take a back seat to quarterly lead quotas. The creative discipline of marketing becomes reactive.

The same thing happens when product reports into engineering. You get well-built things, but not always the right things.

It’s a Personality Thing, Too

Charles Handy’s work on organizational personality types helps explain this. Engineering often attracts structured, analytical thinkers. Product draws in divergent, exploratory personalities who are comfortable living in ambiguity.

The problem is not that these personalities cannot work together. The problem arises when one reports to the other. The dominant mindset tends to shape priorities, incentives, and language. Product loses its voice. Delivery becomes the default lens.

In my earlier example — where marketing is placed under sales — you see the same kind of imbalance. It introduces blind spots and narrows focus. The organization gets very good at execution, but only within a limited frame.

It is not that a CTO cannot become a great CPO. Of course they can. But the personality strengths that made them effective at leading engineering do not always align with what is required for product leadership. When you are swimming upstream, even progress feels harder. Less natural. Less sustainable.

Handy captured this dynamic well in The Gods of Management, where he mapped different organizational cultures to different leadership styles. Some thrive on control. Others on creativity. The most effective organizations build structures that let each thrive in its own domain, without being subordinated.

In conclusion

Whether you are a seed-stage startup or a 20-year-old SaaS company, the question is not “Who should we hire first?” It is “Where does product sit — and does it have the power to lead?”

Product should not be a support function for technology. It should be its partner. Let product lead discovery. Let technology lead delivery. And give both the influence they need to challenge, complement, and support each other.

Because the fastest way to waste engineering talent is to build the wrong thing really well.

What do you think? Have you seen this play out in your own org? Leave a comment below — I’d love to hear your perspective.