[twelve45]

I think it could be argued though that Jobs probably had a good idea of what is feasible with current technology, and this allowed him to push his team to deliver something that is just slightly beyond the envelope.

I'd consider this similar to how he was said to have very good taste in design, even though he may not have been able to design things all by himself.

[jonnathanson]

That's a fair point.

If we're defining "technical" as having a deep understanding of where technology is headed, and what its implications on various markets will be, then yes, being technical seems to convey a pretty distinct advantage in the C-suite. Conversely, lacking such an understanding dooms your company's fate to chance. You could get lucky and avoid disruption, or stumble into evolution. But, just as likely, you could miss major upside or fall into major downside. In this sense, to be technical is to have the ability to steer your own ship (for better or for worse). Not to be technical is to allow the currents to carry you where they may (often for worse).

[doodyhead]

He is also specific about what he means:

"Technology skills do not necessarily mean hands-on skills, though they can arise from hands-on experience. It means simply understanding the technological state of play in the environment in a way that you can make exceptional decisions.

But the skills do have to be exceptional, even if they are not hands-on."

[robrenaud]

But in using "exceptional" in the definition, the author basically gets a free pass. You cannot make predictions based on his definition of technical. You only know a decision was exceptional with hind sight.

Ergo, the best CEOs are the "technical" ones, but not in the classic sense where technical means provided ingenious solutions to problems.