The over 40s I know are also able to produce working crap faster than the young-uns. If you call it a prototype (so the goal is showing functionality that works but later it will be tossed out and redone) then hiring me is probably going to produce a better one (less bugs and will probably last until the startup runs out of money) then it would with a ‘team of young ninjas’. As PR for VCs I can see a bunch of young people might look better (not to many VCs I talk to but I so not live in the US), but if you want ‘faster’, a 35+ who kept up is probably faster and cheaper. In my experience. When the company grows I definitely would not want a CTO under 35/40.
Re: The over 40s I know are also able to produce working [prototypes] faster...
Not necessarily if it has to be built in some stack or language flavor of the month (and VC's check). If you change entire tool-sets every 18 months, I bet the younger folks will be able to re-learn faster. I'm 40+ myself, and am saying this from experience. It's unfortunate our industry is so fad-driven, but I didn't create humans, I just work among them.
I recommend one focus on a domain (insurance IT, healthcare IT, etc.) when they get around 40. Your domain knowledge will have market value. Reformatting your head all the time is not a good career strategy for most. (There is some value to some new IT things, but a good portion is hype and gimmicks.)
It might be different in different regions and different markets. Here VCs definitely don't check (or care). I find that they are generally more interested in buzzword bingo on a more abstract level; AI, ML, Blockchain etc. That said, I'm not building a religion; if the latest tech is a business goal, then it will happen.
And i'm also not sure if it's true that 'we' would be slower to learn these things; I keep on top because, I feel, that as CTO, I need to understand what is out there and if there is something promising that can help us long term, I want to be early to find it. So I do learn every new fad, and, not to sound cocky because I believe it's just experience, there is not much to learn; they are all, in a lot of ways, rehashes. Sometimes you see something really innovative, but that's not the thing that ends up being a fad or even remotely popular. After 30+ years of programming in many different technologies/projects (especially the functional experience helps a lot these days) etc it is easy to recognize the patterns and the goals the programmer was going for when building that new tech. Not that I would want that job as a non-cto at a startup :)
I think this depends on the difference of perspective between startup->fledgling-and-profitable company CTO and Fortune 500 CTO.
I feel like in the case of the later, the priorities are much more in the order of 1) manage business risk wrt technology, and 2) manage organizational processes wrt technology.
Tech is only the thing that gets you to the thing and the usefulness of anything new is either a) readily apparent (like from orbit), or b) can only be brought in from outside talent (failure of priority #2) or learned from falling on your ass (failure of priority #1).
My point being, it is of little benefit in this scenario to spend any time actually learning the latest fad tech.
I agree with that; the bigger the company the more business like the CTO is. I consulted the CTO of a large insurance company: he showed me (and told me) I never really want to become that. I like getting people to make great things that benefit the business; I make myself know about the business, budgets etc. I believe some companies are underestimating tech and what it can do, at any scale; I believe I add value to the bottomline there. Learning new tech is not for the direct benefit of the company/business but it is indirect; I need to know how to talk to people in my teams. When they talk about something new and ask ‘why not this’, I am not the manager that said ‘stfu and work on what we pay you for’; I like to discuss it and I cannot do that if I did not try it. If someone convinces me it is a good idea, then we can do a PoC. I could just ask someone else to do that research and, as companies grow that is inevitable, at this moment however, I think I am doing a good thing.
Maybe you are CTO and I'm not because my brain is not fast enough to keep up. Yes, a lot of it is rehashes of old things, but I keep inter-confusing the old incarnations with the new ones when coding. You can't cross-confuse 2 things if you never met one of them. Plus, its hard to keep enthusiasm up for the 500th reinvention of the wheel. Maybe I'll reinvent stronger coffee; call it "Covfefe 2.0", or "Blockchain Covfefe"...
Yeah I see what you mean: I have something like that; I get enthusiastic because I see people apparently solving things that annoy me. So I go and try them and find they made things worse, usually. Sometimes, however, it is really great and then we start using it.
> I bet the younger folks will be able to re-learn faster.
This is another place where experience helps. I can definitely learn a new framework faster now that I've had 10+ years experience than I could when I first started.
You might be able to find more younger people who already know the framework of the month.
> I recommend one focus on a domain (insurance IT, healthcare IT, etc.)
So that others benefit from my experience: the cheat code to this is to work in marketing tech. You will have domain experience in all of these in a relatively short time because you will have had to deal with partners & clients from these domains.
You also learn very quickly how any company makes its money, what they consider positive contributions to the bottom line and how you can be one of those.
Except for at the fringes of new tech, traditional business is far more personally rewarding than working in the seeking-funding startup snakepit.
