The CPTO role from people who know

08 October 2026 / Leadership / Technology / Career development

Last week, I facilitated a panel of impressive and accomplished CPTOs on the realities of the role, how they got into it and – especially in light of current AI developments – where they think it’s heading next. Here are some notes.

No set path into the role

The CPTOs were from a range of backgrounds, and they had really interesting career journeys. Broadly, two were from a product background and two from an engineering background (including one who started out working on building planes) but the theme that really came out was being people who solve problems. People who take ownership, and are adaptable, and as a result get additional responsibilities.

You don’t need both backgrounds

I asked the panel what was hardest to pick up about the discipline that wasn’t their background. One note was that with technology, no-one wants to own it, they are happy that you are taking care of it. But with product, suddenly everyone in the business wants a piece of it.

Interestingly though, no-one had a specific example that was a blocker. Prior to this discussion I had been speaking with a CPO who felt that the lack of an engineering background would be a blocker to the role, but the panel agreed that this was not the case. It’s not about being able to do all the things, it’s about creating the systems that allow people to be successful, as per any role where you don’t have all the backgrounds (CEO for example!).

One of the panellists who had come directly from a CPO role explained that key was building trust with the engineers, which doesn’t have to depend on literally being able to do their job, but on really listening to what they say and demonstrating that you’ve taken it on board.

Picking the right second-in-command is of course crucial; the senior person who has the background or depth of understanding that you don’t.

What about the healthy friction?

One of the advantages of having a CPO and a CTO working alongside each other is the (ideally) healthy friction and challenge that leads to better outcomes. I asked the panel if they missed that and if so, where they found that challenge.

The overall consensus was no, they did not miss it; the trade-off in being able to make faster decisions, think more holistically about value, and have ownership of the whole area feels definitely worth losing that peer relationship, and the panel agreed that in any case, not every experience of working alongside a peer to co-lead product and technology does meet that constructive ideal.

However, there are some disadvantages to being the sole person in the seat that you need to mitigate. You can become an echo chamber, so you do really need to seek out that challenge, and make sure it is someone with the courage to stand up to you.

You can also end up making decisions too quickly for the organisation. When you have a product or tech counterpart, the work you do selling your idea to them is good practice for the questions your teams may ask, and allows you to work through the details of the answers before going wider. It also gives people time to catch up. When you are working solo you need to build in mechanisms to do those things.

Keeping the trade-offs internal

One panellist noted that as a CPO, it is possible to think relatively linearly; quarterly plans rolling up into half-year and annual goals. However, as a CPTO, they feel like it is more like a Rubik’s Cube: every decision affects multiple horizons at the same time. It becomes your responsibility to balance long-term platform investment against near-term customer value, or immediate commercial outcomes against future optionality.

These time horizons need to be balanced even when there are two people in post and can form part of the healthy friction in a well-functioning CTO/CPO relationship; having them both in one role makes it easier to focus on creating an environment where good decisions can be made across different time horizons.

Similarly, another panellist noted that because as CPTO they were responsible for the whole platform, they had a lot of autonomy. The rest of the exec team are less interested in dictating what they do as long as they stay within budget.

These both demonstrate a difference for the exec team in having this role. Where there are two people in the role, some of these trade-offs will surface and need to be addressed by the CEO or rest of the exec team.

You may need a lot of airtime at the exec table

When one person is the CPTO they may end up really hogging the floor in exec discussions and at offsites, etc. For example, here’s why we need additional investment in engineering; also, here’s why we need additional investment in security; also, here’s why we need additional investment in data, etc.

One panellist responded to this point by saying they often bring in their team to speak to those things, which can work depending on your environment. But it still can be the case that you end up needing to take a lot of airtime. This can also be challenging if, for example, the board get to know you initially as someone with a clear plan for security, who then also is the person bringing innovation; this can be difficult for some boards to get their head around.

In any case, however this works, it’s really important for the CPTO to know the CEO has their back, otherwise there could be a risk of speaking less than is needed.

Is the CPTO role the future?

The original conversation that sparked the panel was a discussion about whether AI levels the playing field for execs taking on extra areas. Specifically with regard to CPTO roles, but also more widely for all exec roles.

None of the panellists could see a scenario where they would go back to a role where they led only product or technology, AI or not.

However, we all agreed that adaptability is the most important skill for all exec roles, especially with the current rate of change. CPTO is the role currently most needing to adapt to take advantage of AI advances, but we predicted CMO would be next, with COO (for example supply chains, logistics) and CFO not far behind.

For all roles, as well as adaptability, other crucial skills include being able to mobilise people and move fast. Judgement and a product understanding is crucial: we’ve all seen companies finish their backlog but not a lot of companies actually delivering new value using AI, and that is because understanding what to build is the real distinction.

Will there be fewer roles at the exec table?

Sparked by a question from the audience, we also discussed what the future structure of the exec team might be. We didn’t have a clear answer: there are lots of ways to structure the exec team depending on what’s important to the business, and the CEO needs to decide where to reduce friction by having one person cover multiple functions, and where to introduce it.

There are some roles where depending on scope there is potential conflict with CPTO, for example Chief Transformation Officer or Chief AI officer. The latter reminded a couple of us of the situation several years ago where many organisations had both a Chief Technology Officer and a Chief Digital Officer. That potentially creates a situation where both are working on the same area, but one with less ability to effect change.

One role that seemed likely to be created from the CPTO merge is CISO; security is even more important now and some panellists felt it was likely to warrant a separate exec role.

Thank you to a great panel

We covered a lot more areas and it was really great to have their collective wisdom in the room. Thank you to Christina Scott, Georgie Smallwood, Jo Wickremasinghe and Tiama Hanson-Drury for a brilliant discussion.