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.
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).
"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."
Ergo, the best CEOs are the "technical" ones, but not in the classic sense where technical means provided ingenious solutions to problems.
I'd be far more interested in it if Mr. Rao had said "and now that I've said that, here's what my theory predicts about Steve Ballmer and Tim Cook, who are definitely both finance-oriented CEOs."
Also I'm fairly surprised to see this in Forbes: "In general CEOs are in an adversarial relationship with the investment community. If they are sincere about their jobs, they are in it to build long-term value in enduring companies that create real, as opposed to paper wealth. Investors generally want to simply create preferentially-predictable-to-them stock movements that they can take advantage of on their own personal wealth-building schedule, which has nothing to do with the fundamental time constants or market tempo of the company."
Did Forbes just notice that the financier class are parasites who are in an 'adversarial relationship' with people who actually create value? Pinch me!
Of course there was a gulf between his technical skills and those of Woz, but few people in that era had any programming or hardware design knowledge at all.
Furthermore, Rao's assertion that Jobs lacked "people skills" is demonstrably false. It's true that Jobs was an unrelenting perfectionist, an introvert, at times a genuine asshole, and probably narcissistic. But to say he lacked "people skills" is to ignore his profound understanding of how to communicate with people. How to inspire people, be they co-founders, employees, or customers. How to move people. These skills had to be quite strong, indeed, in order to overcome the barriers his difficult personality erected around him. When we speak of "people skills," we really need to define what we're talking about. If we're simply talking about being an affable guy, then no, most CEOs probably don't pass the test. But if we're talking about the ability to understand, speak to, lead, organize, and often downright manipulate people, then yes, "people skills" are pretty crucial.