Interviewer:
What exactly is a CPTO organization, and what initially inspired you to explore a managerless approach in building one?
Matthias Laug: In my opinion, a CPTO office is the most recent iteration on the way tech or product executives are implemented within an tech centric organization. While previously there were two individual roles, CPO and CTO, we now see more leaders taking on both product and tech leadership simultaneously to create a true symbiosis between the two. Creating a managerless organization is my reaction to the suboptimal experiences I had with bloated management structures that distanced leaders like myself from day-to-day operations. So happened at Tier, when I was running a 380 people org. I thought I require all those managers. To be clear, I don’t mean an organization without any managers—I truly believe that managers can operate effectively at a ratio of 1:50. And running this requires a certain established and cohesive culture, which is obviously way easier to implement and maintain if you reign over both engineering and product org.
Interviewer:
You mentioned that at Tier you managed a 380-person organization. Can you share a specific instance where you felt the traditional management structure was holding back efficiency, and how did that experience shape your views?
Matthias Laug: During my time at Tier, I managed an organization of 380 people. I believed it was necessary to establish layers such as VPs, Directors, and Heads, which meant that engineers were three levels removed from me. Hey, I studied theoretical informatics and never took a single management class - so this principle was the easiest for me to understand and also best known in the industry, so I had plently of examples. But, I like to be hands-on and get involved in understanding issues at a deep level. However, I unintentionally distanced myself from my own organization and ended up becoming, sadly, just a master of Excel managing budgets.
Interviewer:
What was the turning point in your thinking regarding the need for a different management structure, and what were the initial concrete steps you took to change this dynamic?
Matthias Laug: Nothing changed within the company—we had too much going on at the time, and I honestly feared taking the step to abolish all management layers. In hindsight, I should have done this. But retrospectively, everything feels easy. Additionally, because I was so distant from the operational level, I falsely assumed that everyone was uniquely irreplaceable, and I feared losing key people during the transformation. Eventually, I left for other reasons but started to rethink my approach to avoid making the same mistake twice. However, my previous experiences at Lieferando, where I had pushed for less managers, left me uncertain about this path.
Interviewer:
Can you elaborate on your experience at Lieferando, and what aspects of that experience led you to initially favor a more layered management structure?
Matthias Laug: At Lieferando, I tried to keep the organization lean by establishing only a small leadership circle responsible for dedicated areas of the product. However, these leaders lacked clear reporting lines or defined responsibilities. I made them teethless tigers so to speak. As a result, everything became messy and uncertainty reigned when critical decisions needed to be made, leading to significant delays. The idea felt good in theory, but the framework was terrible in practice. I learnt that just proclaiming flat hierachies and high indepdence still requires a framework otherwise you actually establish anarchy.
Interviewer:
Given these challenges, what specific changes or frameworks have you considered to balance staying operationally involved while ensuring that decisions are made efficiently?
Matthias Laug: For me, the written word—as a central agreement between myself and the organization—is at the heart of it all. I carried over the values from my time at Lieferando by establishing a strict framework of principles, playbooks, and precise role descriptions. The interesting thing is that none of this is new, yet in the startup world, role descriptions are widely underestimated and undervalued. Many people assume that a new hire already knows their duties upon joining, but without proper guidance, they simply revert to the ways they worked at their previous company. This approach might work by chance, but it is ultimately based on luck.
Interviewer:
How do you plan to ensure that these written frameworks remain dynamic and are actively maintained by everyone in the organization?
Matthias Laug: It starts with me. The CPTO must be someone who is both able and willing to work with their sleeves rolled up in the “machine room.” I lead by example—I adhere to the playbooks and role descriptions myself. I resolve decisions by quoting our principles, assign tasks by referencing the appropriate role descriptions, and challenge meetings if they don’t comply with our playbooks. In essence, I role model the behavior I expect from others. While this approach is straightforward, it can be exhausting; being hands-on must be enjoyable, or you won’t sustain the energy needed throughout the day. The hardest part is to always have an exit strategy when hands on and also willing to leave the room when you are not needed. This is not always about finding out where you are value add. And keeping people in the known what role you are taking in right now.
Interviewer:
Your approach is very hands-on. How do you balance your personal involvement with the need to empower your team to make their own decisions?
Matthias Laug: I involve myself through active work rather than by making decisions that clearly fall within another person‘s role. I question, challenge, and prompt discussion, but the moment I realize someone expects me to make decisions for them, I redirect and hold them accountable. If I notice this behavior recurring, I prefer to part ways with that person rather than take over their decision-making responsibilities. Quite frankly, realizing that someone isn‘t a fit is a super power in this framework. You must be willing to make changes.
Interviewer:
In practice, how do you support team members in developing the confidence and skills necessary to make decisions on their own?
Matthias Laug: I first need to ask myself whether I can truly support someone in building their confidence or if they already possess what the role requires. I question whether someone who needs their confidence built is a good fit for the position. I require people to be confident enough to fail within the first month rather than avoiding risks and ultimately failing because they couldn’t take initiative. Ultimately, this leads to the most important part: while everyone claims to hire for character, most only hire for skill and capacity. I hire, first and foremost, for character—and I let go of people who do not meet that standard.
Interviewer:
Could you share more about how you evaluate a candidate's character during the hiring process, and perhaps give an example of when this approach led you to make a tough decision?
Matthias Laug: One tactic is to confront candidates with the playbook and ask for their opinions. Many people confuse the playbook with absolute liberties— making decisions without accepting accountability. The right candidates understand this balance and are eager to discuss how they will work to meet those expectations. They are usually excited, yet appropriately anxious, and they delve deeper into the details. Other candidates simply agree and claim they would enjoy such principles without further thought. I have made tough decisions when I failed to properly evaluate a candidate’s character. Often, my bias led me to hire someone based on a gut feeling of a “right fit,” only to later discover that, while they were great to talk to and fun to be around, they did not meet the necessary professional standards. In such cases, I had to take a professional stance and part ways with them.