Ok, going through the names given, both in the OP's post and in comments :
  • Zuckerberg of Facebook : terrible CEO of a terrible company
  • Armstrong of Coinbase : terrible CEO of a terrible company
  • Gates of Microsoft : terrible CEO of a terrible company
  • Ellison of Oracle : terrible CEO of a terrible company
The world in general, and the industry sectors they were part of, would have been much better off without each of the companies listed above (i.e. their companies have had a massively deleterious impact).
So not making a good case for 'techie' CEOs on the basis of these four.
Now moving on to the three other names I see mentioned.
  • Jobs of Apple : not a 'techie' and Apple's net impact on the world is somewhat up for debate
  • Elon of Tesla & Spacex : definitely a techie (despite what the deniers say). I would argue both companies have had a strong positive impact on the world, so here's the first definite win for techies as CEO
  • Huang of nVidia : the person and company I'm least familiar with, so not well placed give an opinion here
So I'm giving 1 win from 5 techie CEOs identified. Of course, there are a lot of bad 'non-techie' CEOs too, so one could ask whether 20% success rate for 'techieness' is even that bad compared to the industry standard. But still, I don't think you've necessarily got a winning argument here.
The argument is about discriminating against CEO from a techie background. Terrible company does not mean the company is not successful...
reply
We discriminate all the time (e.g. I prefer eating lamb over beef). Discrimination is an essential tool (even though it is sometimes misused / abused). So the point I'm making, even though I'm mostly playing the devil's advocate, is that maybe the discrimination is somewhat justified when you see what horrible companies 'techie' CEOs can create.
reply
Discrimination of skills not discrimination of backgrounds
reply
All the bad CEO listed above were successful CEO because they increased profits and shareholder value.
The job of a CEO is to increase profits and shareholders value
Any CEO who accomplishes that is good or successful
reply
The job of a CEO is to increase profits and shareholders value
We disagree here.
Two distinguished Harvard Business School professors–Joseph L. Bower and Lynn S. Paine—recently declared in Harvard Business Review that maximizing shareholder value is “the error at the heart of corporate leadership.” It is “flawed in its assumptions, confused as a matter of law, and damaging in practice.” Bower has long held this view: back in 1970, he told NPR that maximizing shareholder value was “pernicious nonsense.”
Jack Welch, who in his tenure as CEO of GE from 1981 to 2001 was seen as the uber-hero of maximizing shareholder value, has been even harsher. In 2009, he famously declared that shareholder value is “the dumbest idea in the world. Shareholder value is a result, not a strategy... your main constituencies are your employees, your customers and your products. Managers and investors should not set share price increases as their overarching goal… Short-term profits should be allied with an increase in the long-term value of a company.”
But despite these denunciations, the “pernicious nonsense” of shareholder value has spread. Shareholder value thinking, say Bower and Paine, “is now pervasive in the financial community and much of the business world. It has led to a set of behaviors by many actors on a wide range of topics, from performance measurement and executive compensation to shareholder rights, the role of directors, and corporate responsibility.”
reply
Let me rephrase.
CEO main job is to increase profits. More profits will increase shareholder value.
CEO is judged on profitability and making company more valuable.
I also meant long term value of company, not shareholders value per se but long term value is correlated with shareholder value
reply