The board's blind spot
Most board-level COO assessments focus on commercial capability, leadership experience and strategic thinking. These are important, but in technically intensive businesses they're not sufficient. A COO who cannot credibly evaluate technical risk, cannot challenge the technical leadership team, and cannot represent technical matters to the board is a liability – even if their commercial credentials are impeccable.
This blind spot matters because boards in aviation and infrastructure are ultimately accountable for safety, compliance and operational risk. If the only person who truly understands the technical risk profile is the Head of Engineering or Head of Maintenance – if that understanding doesn't reach COO level – then the board is making decisions based on filtered information.
What technical literacy means at COO level
We're not suggesting every COO needs to be an engineer. But in technically intensive businesses, they do need technical literacy sufficient to:
- Evaluate whether technical leadership is giving them good advice or covering problems
- Understand the implications of technical decisions for safety and commercial performance
- Represent technical matters accurately to the board without depending entirely on subordinates
- Challenge technical recommendations when they don't make sense
- Spot the difference between genuine technical constraints and organisational politics dressed up as technical necessity
A framework for board evaluation
When evaluating a COO candidate's technical capability, we suggest boards consider the following dimensions:
1. Technical foundation
What's their background? Have they ever had direct accountability for technical operations? It's not essential that they've been an engineer, but some meaningful exposure to technical decision-making at an earlier career stage builds judgement that's hard to develop later.
2. Regulatory interface capability
Can they engage directly with regulators, or do they always need technical support? In aviation particularly, the regulator's view of senior management competence affects their overall assessment of the organisation. A COO who cannot hold their own in a regulatory discussion is a governance risk.
3. Technical team evaluation
Can they evaluate whether their technical leadership is strong or weak? We've seen situations where COOs inherited weak technical teams but couldn't identify the problem because they lacked the framework to assess technical competence. The problems only became visible when they manifested as operational failures.
4. Risk articulation
Can they explain technical risk in terms the board can understand and act on? This is perhaps the most important capability – the ability to translate technical complexity into governance language without losing accuracy.
Questions for the interview process
Standard interview processes often miss technical capability because they focus on commercial and strategic questions. Consider adding:
- Walk me through a technical decision you made that had significant risk implications. How did you evaluate it?
- Tell me about a time when you disagreed with your technical leadership. How did you resolve it?
- How would you explain our current technical risk profile to a board member who doesn't have a technical background?
- What would you look for in evaluating whether our technical leadership team is strong enough?
The cost of getting it wrong
A COO without sufficient technical literacy will either defer excessively to technical leadership (creating a governance gap) or override technical advice inappropriately (creating operational risk). Neither outcome serves the board's interests.
In our experience, boards that take technical evaluation seriously in COO appointments end up with stronger governance overall. The COO becomes a genuine bridge between technical operations and board-level decision-making, rather than a filter that obscures technical reality.
Evaluating a COO appointment?
We support boards and investors with technical due diligence and leadership assessment.