It's actually the same root cause for both -- incompetent management. Having an idiot in the C$(x)O suite forcing competent engineers into supervisory roles for which they are extremely unqualified does as much damage as having him force the engineers to follow Waterfall development methodology.
And it's absolutely not a matter of training. A CIO who isn't an engineer and who hasn't spent at least part of their life actually doing engineering can't be "trained" to be a competent engineer; not without giving up the CIO gig and becoming an actual hands-on engineer for a while.
By the same exact logic, you can't take a random engineer out of the pool, send him to manager school, and then stick him in a corner office. The day-to-day tasks of scheduling and spreadsheets and budgets may not be technically difficult, but managing is all about handling people, and many engineers won't have the schmoozing abilities needed to make them comfortable in that role. Ever take a Meyers Briggs test? Ever notice how the managers' results are generally distinct from those of the engineers? There's a clue.
Just like someone chooses to go into engineering, some people choose to go into management. The office of the CIO is best served when it contains someone who naturally has both talents.